Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bypasses

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much central Government are making available to councils for the building of bypasses; and what is the comparable figure for the last three years.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The transport supplementary grant settlement announced on 17 December will make £207 million available to local authorities in 1991–92 for the building of bypasses. The equivalent figures for the past three years were £139 million, £157 million and £202 million respectively.

Mr. Mitchell: Since this is the first Question Time of 1991, I hope that it is in order to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and your staff a happy new year, in which I catch your eye many times.
In view of the importance that the Government attach to the building of bypasses for environmental, traffic and quality of life reasons, the fact that this year's transport supplementary grant settlement for Nottinghamshire showed an increase of 300 per cent. on last year and the fact that many of my constituents in Gedling village have had to wait nearly 60 years for Gedling bypass even to be put in the capital programme, will my right hon. and learned Friend at least urge Nottinghamshire county council to ensure that that important and much-needed road enters the capital programme as swiftly as possible?

Mr. Rifkind: I am well aware of the strong efforts that my hon. Friend has made to bring forward the date of that bypass. As he will appreciate, it is very much a matter for Nottinghamshire county council to decide whether to include that project in its programme. If it decides to do so, the project would be considered for TSG support at the appropriate time.

Mr. Lord: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend on behalf of my constituents in Suffolk, as their grant this year is being more than doubled, which will be greatly appreciated. I also hope that the extra money will speed up the arrival of a bypass that is much needed in the villages of Rickinghall and Botesdale, where villagers have waited many a long year for such a bypass to be built. I appreciate that this is a matter for the county council, but the villagers hope, as I do, that the bypass will soon be built.

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I attach considerable importance to bypasses, which not only help the flow of traffic, but bring major environmental benefits to those who live in the towns and villages that are bypassed. The contribution of bypasses is increasingly important, given the pressures placed on local communities by the huge increase in the volume of traffic in recent years.

Mr. Skinner: Will the announcement include bypasses in the county of Derbyshire such as that at Glapwell in my constituency? Is it not a fact that money has not been allocated to Derbyshire because the standard spending assessment there is too low compared with those of Wandsworth and Westminster and if Derbyshire county council had as much money it could have gone forward with bypasses at Glapwell and other places in the county? Will the Secretary of State have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that we receive the money next year?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had a word with his local authority it might reduce its spending to benefit community charge payers in the constituency. The transport supplementary grant settlement will enable many worthwhile projects around the country to go forward in a way that would not otherwise be possible.

M25

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress in upgrading the M25.

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on the measures contained in his Department's action plan to improve the operation of the M25 motorway.

Mr. Rifkind: I announced on 3 December that the M25 is to be widened to four lanes, with better lighting and signalling including variable message signs, and that its junctions are to be improved to speed up traffic flows. The design work has now been started.

Mr. Marshall: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to the Department of Transport, which proves that there is life after the Scottish Office. Many of us hope that England's roads will become as uncongested as Scotland's roads were under his leadership. Does he agree that the M25's history has been bedevilled by timid planning and inaccurate forecasts? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a six-lane highway or a second M25 is needed?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his first comments, which I greatly appreciate.
The current proposal is that there should be a four-lane M25, although it is considered possible that some stretches of that road would be suitable for five lanes. It is always impossible to forecast traffic demand with certainty, but I believe that the M25, even in its present form, has led to considerable benefits, especially by reducing the number of heavy lorries in London. That is of great benefit to those who live in the metropolis.

Mr. Knapman: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement just before Christmas on


improvements to the M25. Have adequate funds been made available for this purpose? What is the likely starting date?

Mr. Rifkind: I can assure my hon. Friend that the programme, which will take a number of years to implement, will be given a high priority in the spending resources of the Department.
The design work has already started; much of the work announced in the action plan is already in hand—for example, variable message signs and signals are to be installed with completion by early 1992 on part of the motorway and contracts for lighting improvements, as well as for a number of other detailed improvements, have been let. Road construction work takes longer because of design work and the necessary planning permission, but we intend to make as much progress as possible over the next few years.

Mr. Tony Banks: Given the scandalous chaos that surrounds the whole M25, what assurance can the Minister give that the planners will get it right this time when they got it so badly wrong the time before? Surely, the more one increases the number of lanes on motorways the more traffic is attracted to them. Would not one of the best ways of dealing with the problems of the M25 be to close it down?

Mr. Rifkind: Those who live in the south-east will learn with considerable interest of the view of Labour Members that we should redirect the huge number of vehicles that use the M25 back into London. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would not be grateful for that. One hundred and sixty thousand vehicles a day use the busiest section of the M25 and if it were not available the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be very unimpressed by his suggestion.

Ms. Ruddock: The Secretary of State must know that by the time the fourth lane is completed traffic will have increased by 33 per cent. It cannot be beyond his imagination to accept that neither he nor his Department can provide sufficient road space to meet the increasing demand that his Department predicts. Does he agree with us that the time has come to look at the possibility of new orbital links on the railways around London to try to deal with the growth of traffic?

Mr. Rifkind: For a number of years now there have been substantial increases in investment in the railways. I have no doubt that the rail network will provide part of the solution to the transport needs of this part of the country, but the majority of the public will wish to continue using their own means of transport and it will be a responsibility of whichever party is in government to ensure that the road network can help to meet these requirements.

Mr. Dunn: While a general welcome has been given to the decision to provide lighting along most of the length of the M25, will the Secretary of State explain why it was decided not to provide lighting on the part of the M25 that goes through north-west Kent in general and Dartford in particular?

Mr. Rifkind: So far as I recollect, the only part of the M25 that is not to be provided with lighting is the part that has the lowest volume of traffic and where lighting was not thought to be necessary. However, I will happily look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

North-West England

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited the north-west of England by rail.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Although my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to visit the north-west by rail, his ministerial colleagues at the Department have done so on several occasions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Should the requirement for British Rail InterCity services to make a profit have precedence over the duty placed on BR to provide a full public service? If quality of service has priority, why is the frequency of service between London and the route centre of Penrith to be reduced to the disadvantage of the travelling public? That has given rise to some anger in the county.

Mr. Freeman: In our judgment there is nothing inconsistent between asking InterCity to make a profit—to earn revenue in excess of operating costs; it is one of the few railway systems in the world to achieve that—and the provision of a quality service. Of course that is not possible for regional railways and is currently not possible for Network SouthEast. However, it is possible for InterCity.

Mr. Fearn: When the Minister visits the north-west will he please look at the Burscough curves? Will he look at it with a view to opening up the south-west of Lancashire and especially my resort of Southport? The route was closed many years ago under the Beeching cuts and if it were reinstated it would open up the whole of south-west Lancashire and bring rail traffic from Scotland and the north.

Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly look at that when I next visit the north-west. The hon. Gentleman may care to note that when an investment proposition for regional railways is considered by British Rail and put to Ministers, approval does not necessarily hinge upon meeting an 8 per cent. financial rate of return. Where necessary, other criteria, including non-user benefits such as road decongestion, economic regeneration and other economic and social benefits, are taken into account.

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware of the criticisms that are levelled against the Government about lack of investment in the north-west. However, I am sure that he is aware of the major investment that is taking place on the north-west main line from London to our major cities. The problems facing north-west travellers are to be found on the rural and minor urban lines, especially those between Liverpool and Preston where train frequency has been reduced. On his next visit to the north-west will he look into that matter as well?

Mr. Freeman: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to services on the west coast main line. I again confirm that British Rail still plans to upgrade the west coast main line at a cost of some £750 million to provide a two-hour service from London to Manchester. That is still firmly in the rail programme. In terms of improvements to services in the north-west, we recently approved the electrification of the line between Hooton and Chester and I am sure that that is greatly welcomed not only on Merseyside but by


Cheshire county council. We will look at all sensible propositions put forward by British Rail for improving services in the north-west.

Greater Manchester

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a public statement about transport in Greater Manchester.

Mr. Freeman: Today British Rail introduces class 158 vehicles to the transpennine route which links Manchester with Liverpool and Leeds and Newcastle. The rail link to the airport will open in 1993. The Metrolink light rail scheme is under construction and will open in about 12 months.

Mr. Bennett: Could the Minister explain to my constituents who, during 1988 and 1989, suffered a great deal every time they entered Manchester Piccadilly station because British Rail was carrying out so-called improvements to that station, why, even after those improvements, they are still suffering because of a poor service? Is he aware that the centre of Manchester was snarled up on several occasions before Christmas because of the large number of people using the roads there? They used those roads because they have totally lost confidence in British Rail's ability efficiently to run local services in and out of Manchester Piccadilly.

Mr. Freeman: I am aware of the discussions between the passenger transport authority and British Rail about section 20 support under the Transport Act 1968 for suburban services in Manchester. I understand that regional railways are seeking to resolve the reliability problems, particularly with older rolling stock such as the pacers and the older diesel units. As to the congestion in the centre of Manchester, I hope that the introduction of Metrolink, for which the taxpayer is providing a cash grant in excess of £50 million, will help congestion, particularly for those who travel from a south-westerly or northerly direction into Manchester. Let us hope that, in due course, it will be possible to extend the Metrolink to include and benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that Manchester airport is the third largest in the United Kingdom and that the second terminal will double its capacity from 9 million to 18 million? Is it not also a fact that, of the £87 million that the Government earmarked for borrowing approvals, a lion's share has gone to Manchester international airport? Does not this speak volumes for Members of Parliament representing the north-west and for the Government, who have listened to what we have had to say?

Mr. Freeman: It speaks volumes for my hon. Friend and his colleagues who have strongly pressed the Government to support the expansion plans for the airport. My hon. Friend is correct to say that the new terminal at Manchester will permit a 50 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using it. The rail link from the centre of Manchester to the airport is well under way and will open in 1993, as I said to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Further to that, there will be a road link to the airport. All will help the future growth and prosperity of Manchester.

Mr. Eastham: At this late hour, the House hopes that there will not be conflict in the Gulf, but great play has been made in the media of the fact that Manchester airport will be used to receive many of the casualties that may occur if there is a war.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about transport in Greater Manchester.

Mr. Eastham: That is what my supplementary is about.
If there is a conflict and many casualties are directed to Manchester airport, will the Minister ensure that all contingency expenses such as reception, accommodation, security, nursing and transport are met from the central contingency fund rather than by the owners of Manchester airport?

Mr. Freeman: I note the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman says. He would not wish me to comment in detail, but I undertake on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend to get the answer to that question and to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Prescott: As the Minister has made clear, Manchester airport will be subjected to the new security measures introduced because of the Gulf crisis. Will he give us some idea of what those measures will be? Will they include inspection of all luggage that goes into the hold —a move against which the Government have set their face in the past—and the levy that is necessary to finance the machinery for that? Will he consider the economic regulations imposed by his Department on the airports that prevent them from raising the extra money to finance that essential part of security checking?

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not expect me or any of my ministerial colleagues to comment on specific security measures at British airports or on advice to British airlines in the coming rather tense period. As to the examination of luggage going both to the hold and into the cabins of aircraft, my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation will ensure that, in the coming troubled days and weeks, all necessary steps are taken to ensure that not only British travellers but those passengers visiting our shores can travel as safely as possible.

A69

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the dualling of the A69 west of Hexham.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): We are continuing to make improvements to the A69, but traffic flows to the west of Hexham are light and not sufficient to justify dualling.

Mr. Amos: Given the Government's welcome decision to upgrade the Al to motorway standard and to build the Prudhoe and Haltwhistle bypasses and the Ponteland relief road, the A69 is now the strategic east-west link road with the north of England. To get the A69 dualled, would my hon. Friend consider changing the relevant criteria so that they take account of vehicle movements, the nature of the road—it is narrow and hilly—and usage, bearing n mind that the road is used by many slow-moving, heavy


vehicles, including lorries and caravans? On the stretch of road to which I am referring, there have been 300 accidents in the past three years. It is the worst accident black spot in the north-east of England.

Mr. Chope: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the number of vehicles using a road is not the only criterion when we consider whether to construct a dual carriageway. We take into account the physical characteristics of the road and the number of heavy goods vehicles that use it, for example. Where there is evidence of accident black spots, the Government will be equipped to take specific remedial action.

Ms. Quin: May I stress to the Minister that his words will be a considerable disappointment to those in the Tyne and Wear conurbation? If the A69 were of better quality, it would provide a good link to the M5 and the rest of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the last thing that we want for the A69 is the lethal mixture of dual and single carriageways which characterises the Al north of Newcastle?

Mr. Chope: The Government have to set priorities for investment in the road infrastructure and I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the north of England has done well. We are spending about £130 million on road infrastructure in the north of England—that is this year and last year—and there are programmes for about a further £110 million of investment. I am sure that the hon. Lady would wish that investment to be put forward on the most cost-effective basis.

Road Safety

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives he has to announce to improve road safety.

Mr. Chope: The first 20 mph speed limit zones will come into effect on 21 January—the first of many road safety initiatives that are planned for implementation this year.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the most serious accident that could take place would involve a collision of lorries carrying toxic waste or liquefied gases? To avoid such an accident, and accidents generally, will the hon. Gentleman try to implement the two certain savers of accidents, which are daylight saving—that would avoid the deaths of up to 700 persons a year—and the introduction or wider use of speed retarders, which the Department's research has shown would reduce accidents by 15 per cent. on roads in general and by as much as 50 per cent. at specific sites? These measures would result in a great saving of life and reduce the dreadful level of injuries that are suffered on our roads. What is the hon. Gentleman doing about them?

Mr. Chope: Daylight saving is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, while speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles are very much the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are examining carefully and closely whether we would be justified in introducing speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles. There is increasing concern about the intimidation that such vehicles present to many ordinary motorists. There is plenty of evidence that heavy goods vehicles are often driven at speeds far in excess of

the limit that applies to them and that they are not driven as we would wish. That is why the Government are examining seriously the introduction of speed limiters, which we have already introduced for coaches.

Mr. Devlin: When the Government decide that the best improvement to road safety in a local area would be made by constructing a bypass, and grant money to a county council to be used to construct the bypass, will the Minister look into instances where county councils delay construction, including that of the Thornaby bypass where the county council is delaying for up to eight years implementation of the policy which the Government have approved and funded, when the road could be constructed over two or three years?

Mr. Chope: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the shortcomings of Cleveland county council. There are too many examples of county councils and other highway authorities being given resources and then choosing not to spend them in the way that local Members and local communities would wish.

Ms. Walley: Does the Minister accept that far more priority should be given to local schemes, as opposed to major schemes, when transport supplementary grant is being settled? Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), does the Minister agree that in view of the many hazardous loads carried by road, which are set to increase as a result of the proposals to transport as many as 500,000 tonnes of toxic waste for incineration, more safety regulations need to be put into effect? When will the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee publish its findings on the sub-committee on dangerous substances report? Will the Department accept those recommendations in full, and will the Minister consider what more can be done in respect of local road safety?

Mr. Chope: As to local investment in safety schemes, in the coming financial year the Government will, for the first time, give transport supplementary grant for local safety schemes amounting to £30 million, which is in line with the amount recommended by the parliamentary advisory committee on transport safety. Next year's standard spending assessments for local authority road maintenance will increase by some 19 per cent., which means that some £1.75 billion will be available to local authorities to spend on their roads.

Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that one cause of accidents is the speed at which vehicles approach schools? Will he give serious consideration to the placing of speed humps at the sides of roads approaching schools, and the provision of additional flashing lights at a greater distance from the school than is done at present? If my hon. Friend needs to look further for an example, perhaps he could run an experiment in north Yorkshire.

Mr. Chope: The new speed hump regulations give local authorities flexibility to put forward the kind of scheme that my hon. Friend favours.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the chairman of British Rail plans for a direct rail link between the channel tunnel and the north of England; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I last met Sir Bob Reid on 12 December, when we discussed, among other things, rail links between the tunnel and the north.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Secretary of State agree that only a dedicated European-gauge track between the tunnel and north-east England and Scotland will reduce the divide between north and south and that failure to provide one will exacerbate that divide? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take whatever steps are necessary to provide such a track?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not believe that there is any need for a dedicated track at present. If one were provided, it would divert substantial resources from other, more pressing railway requirements. It is important to ensure that demand for services from the channel tunnel can be fully met, but British Rail believes that that will be possible using the existing track, at least for the first few years.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend contemplate the incongruity and inequality as between road and rail in the answers given regarding the north of England at Question Time today? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the Minister for Roads and Traffic saying a few minutes ago that the Al to the north of England is to be converted to a motorway, and that £130 million is to be provided for local roads in the north of England? Will the Secretary of State seriously review the criteria applied by the Department for investment in roads compared with those for investment in railways?

Mr. Rifkind: I read with interest the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) made in the House last March, when he referred to that particular aspect. I am always prepared to consider any argument that there is unfairness or inconsistency in the way in which investment projects are appraised. We make a genuine attempt to assess them on a fair and equitable basis, but we will consider carefully any suggestions to improve our procedures.

Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that not only will the north of England fail to receive through passenger trains when the channel tunnel opens, but that, with the proposed withdrawal of much of the Speedlink network, the north will also have fewer through freight trains? Is not that a further setback both for the railway industry and for the environment? Is the Secretary of State happy at the prospect of an additional 100,000 or more lorry movements on Britain's roads?

Mr. Rifkind: British Rail has said that there will be some delay with regard to through passenger services, not for reasons of resources but because the manufacturers have not yet been able to deliver a firm date and price for the modified rolling stock. Services will be available from day one, although they will involve some changes for passengers, probably at Waterloo. In relation to freight, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the implications of the Speedlink decision for the channel

tunnel. That decision arose out of the massive losses which British Rail was making on its existing Speedlink services. The hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am that about half the freight carried by Speedlink is to be retained by the rail network through new contracts with relevant customers.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the need to ensure that the benefits of the channel tunnel are shared by all regions of the United Kingdom? In that context, has he seen the report recently published by the Transport Users Consultative Committee for western England which draws attention to the need for a direct link to the south-west through Swindon?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, the question is about the north-east.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept what my hon. Friend said—there is bound to be legitimate interest in various parts of the kingdom in having the benefits of the channel services. Essentially, it is for British Rail to decide whether there will be a demand such as to justify providing that service. I hope that it will consider carefully the points made by my hon. Friend.

Newham Way, Canning Town

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a visit to Newham way at Canning Town to discuss the building of a footbridge to enable pedestrians to cross that road without use of a subway.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport visited Canning Town on 2 January, in the company of the hon. Member.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) for promptly accepting that, invitation. Does the Minister agree that, as safety factors are involved, and when millions of pounds are being spent to allow more traffic to travel more quickly through the area, the case is even stronger than that made at the time?

Mr. Chope: Certainly, I am considering the points put to me by my hon. Friend arising out of his visit. One has to have regard to the fact that there are existing subway crossings under that road, and obviously that has to be taken into account when considering the future.

Red Routes

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring of the effect of red routes is planned by his Department.

Mr. Chope: There will be a full programme of monitoring for the pilot red route scheme.

Mr. Corbyn: A happy new year to you, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Minister aware that red routes are being introduced in Islington and in part of Haringey despite the total opposition of people in the area and their local authorities, that when I cycled along the red route this morning it was in its normal traffic-jammed state, with the usual levels of pollution, and that when the red routes were introduced last week the police tried to remove a post van which was emptying a mail box and threatened to remove a disabled person's car? Are not the red routes really a


system of bringing more traffic, more danger and more pollution in central London, when what we need is a restriction on private cars going in and out of central London?

Mr. Chope: I do not agree at all with what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, a letter in The Times today confirms that some of the principal beneficiaries of red routes are buses and their passengers. When I visited the red routes last Wednesday, there was certainly evidence that traffic was flowing much more freely. So far, the red routes seem to have been generally well received and when Islington council has got its act together and completed the red route, I am sure that they will be even better received.

Mr. Jessel: As red routes are an excellent idea, and as experience in Paris shows that they will improve the traffic flow, will my hon. Friend get on with it and not have too full a programme of monitoring?

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extra encouragement. We shall do our best to get the Road Traffic Bill enacted as quickly as possible.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the red routes will prove of great value to people in London, not least to people who are currently plagued by rat runs? Does he also agree that red routes should not be seen as a single item, but as part of a package with improved public transport—which we hope will come shortly in the London assessment study announcement—and with greater park-and-ride facilities on the edges of London?

Mr. Chope: I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made. The red routes are at heart a very comprehensive transport strategy for London.

Network SouthFast

Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the quality of services on Network SouthEast.

Mr. Freeman: We have regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail, at which we discuss a wide range of issues.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister understand that last week's tragedy at Cannon Street station has merely reinforced the fear felt by many commuters from south-east London and Kent that they are being forced to accept a second-class service? Welcome though the new Networker trains will undoubtedly be, they will not automatically bring relief from sudden cancellations, late running, dirty carriages, unhelpful staff and unmanned stations. When will British Rail give those captive commuters a quality of service that would justify the ever-rising fares?

Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement in due course about the tragic accident at Cannon Street station.
The introduction of new Networker trains for the Kent inner routes, which will commence in September, will bring an improvement in the quality of service and, with the lengthening of platforms, will definitely reduce congestion. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to other

qualitative factors on Network SouthEast that have not been dealt with. We and British Rail—Network SouthEast in particular—are considering how those problems should be addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The Court of Appeal has fixed 25 February 1991 for the commencement of the substantive hearing. It also proposes to hold a further preliminary hearing in early February. I will not make a statement; the case is sub judice.

Mr. Mullin: Who authorised the suppression of documents relating to forensic tests carried out on passengers on a ferry between Liverpool and Belfast on 21 November?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House has heard what the Attorney-General said about the matter. The case has been set down for trial, and it is sub judice.

Mr. Mullin: And why were those documents not available at the original trial, or at the appeal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows the rules that apply to such matters.

Mr. Mullin: It is not sub judice. It is a matter of record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Attorney-General aware of newspaper reports to the effect that the Director of Public Prosecutions said at his new year party that the forensic evidence was to be dropped? Is that so? And if it is so, why have defence counsel not been told about it?

The Attorney-General: I am not aware of any of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As for the stance that the Director of Public Prosecutions takes on the hearing of the substantive appeal, that must rest with the Director—who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the holder of an independent statutory office. I can add nothing more to that.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this whole unhappy affair, which stretches back some years and in which so many innocent people were killed, should be settled once and for all? Her Majesty's Government have served the sense of justice well —there have been two trials already. When the appeal comes up, however, can we settle the whole matter once and for all? The Birmingham people do not seek vengeance; they seek justice. Someone, somewhere was


guilty—and the least guilty people are not just those in prison but the many who suffered and died on that dreadful night.

The Attorney-General: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of the matter's being settled, as he puts it, once and for all. Perhaps the House will permit me to cite what was said by Lord Justice Lloyd at the preliminary hearing on 17 December:
We have to balance the imperative need for expedition in this appeal which we wholeheartedly accept with the equally imperative need that on this occasion the decision of the court should be taken on the basis not only of the material now available but also on such further material as will become available when the inquiry of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has been completed.

Mr. John Morris: Like the whole House, I wish to avoid any infringement of the sub judice rule. Therefore, I couch my question in this form: once the appeal is heard, will the Attorney-General lay before the House a full statement, in the form of a paper, on the general implementation of the Attorney-General's guidelines on the disclosure of unused material in prosecutions, the extent to which they have not been implemented in prosecutions in recent years, and whether any requests for the full disclosure of documents have been turned down when inquiries have been made by other police forces?

The Attorney-General: I shall, of course, consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request, but I do not give any commitment.

Mr. Dickens: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that six of the 10 questions to him on the Order Paper today are about the Birmingham Six and that they are identical?

Mr. Tony Banks: You do not care.

Mr. Dickens: The hon. Gentleman says that I do not care, but am I being mischievous in suggesting that this has more to do with the large Irish vote in those Members' constituencies and less to do with the sincerity of their case?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is it?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) questions the sincerity of hon. Members. Normally, that is unacceptable. I would certainly suggest—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the integrity of hon. Members is in question.

Ms. Short: It is.

Mr. Speaker: Such comments do not help us, but I do not think that that particular question was out of order.

Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be one of those hon. Members who tabled a question. I tabled it because of my considerable concern about a miscarriage of justice. It has nothing to do with my own constituents or their backgrounds. It seems to me, therefore, that you should require the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to withdraw what he said.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard many rougher things said in the House.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, No!

Mr. Dickens: I was going to withdraw what I said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better get up and do it, then.

Mr. Dickens: In order to assist the Chair and any hon. Members whom I might have offended, I withdraw my remark about their sincerity.

Mr. Speaker: Very well. Let us move on.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position on Crown prosecution service staffing levels.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Recruitment in the Crown prosecution service has improved during 1990. Lawyers in post are now 1,686 against an increased total requirement of 2,053. As to administrative staff and law clerks, against a total requirement of 3,670, 3,636 are in post.

Mr. Allen: Can the Solicitor-General tell us anything about the workload of the Crown prosecution service? Does it not have enough to do without hundreds of hours of Crown prosecution service time being frittered away in seeking to sustain the conviction of the Birmingham Six and save the face and pride of Lord Lane?

The Solicitor-General: That is a backdoor way of getting in on a previous question about a matter which is entirely sub judice. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that in this country we have an open and careful system of justice. That is what the Court of Appeal will administer.

Mr. Vaz: The Solicitor-General has confirmed, by his own admission to the House, that the Crown prosecution service is still grossly understaffed. It is one fifth down on the staff that it requires. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General accept the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and give the CPS the resources that it so desperately needs?

The Solicitor-General: There were many good things in the recommendations of the Select Committee. It is true that the Crown prosecution service is still only about 80 per cent. staffed, compared with its complement, but it is also true that in its four years of existence it has managed to increase its complement by more than one third. It is making very considerable improvements, just as it did throughout the past year.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Attorney-General confirm that senior judges are saying that the Guildford Four were guilty, despite the fact that they were released by the court? What hope is there for a genuinely fair trial for the Birmingham Six when, apparently, senior members of the judiciary do not accept the findings of the Court of Appeal in relation to the Guildford Four?

The Attorney-General: I confirm nothing of the kind.

Legal Aid

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Attorney-General what steps are taken to encourage the use of representative actions where a substantial number of persons seek legal aid for actions arising out of substantially similar facts.

The Solicitor-General: In cases involving a number of parties and substantially similar facts, applications for legal aid are all referred to the same legal aid area office. Decisions on the grant of legal aid are made in such a way as to encourage representative procedures where appropriate.

Mr. Trimble: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the number of cases that have recently been commenced in the High Court in Belfast against the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? All those cases involve the possibility of information on terrrorist suspects getting into the hands of rival paramilitary organisations, and those suspects have commenced action. I understand that there are more than 50 such actions, with virtually consecutive writ numbers and the same firm of solicitors, but all are being routinely processed for legal aid. Does the Solicitor-General agree that a single action would be sufficient to establish what merits, if any, there may be and that it is a considerable waste of public money for all 50 actions to be individually granted legal aid?

The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the general fact that such actions have been commenced, but I do not know the detail. If they are as the hon. Gentleman says, I am sure that the legal aid authority in Northern Ireland —the Law Society—will consider carefully the points that he has made to see whether such representative action might be appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

The Gulf

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce a programme of ecological aid to the littoral countries of the Persian Gulf.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): No. We seek to concentrate our development aid on the poorest countries, not richer ones like those in the Gulf.

Mr. Dalyell: What contingency plans have been made to cope with the problems of photochemical smog and the excessive release of hydrocarbons, which Paul Crutzen, atmospheric physicist at the Max Planck Institute of

Atmospheric Physics in Maine—the leading authority in the world on these matters—says may be the major problem? If the object is to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, rather than a war that will end God knows where, why has not thought been given to diverting the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates in Syria and Turkey?

Mrs. Chalker: The Meteorological Office, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence are working on possible scenarios, but the best way of avoiding ecological damage in the Gulf—

Mr. Dalyell: Is not war.

Mrs. Chalker: It is for Saddam Hussein to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait today.

Mr. Carrington: In the event of a Gulf war, which we must all hope does not occur, and the likely increase in oil prices that will result from it, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing aid to third-world countries which are dependent on oil for their energy resources and which will be severely hit by their inability to pay the new high prices?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend may already be aware that we have been working with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to see what additional help can be given. The European Community agreed a package of 1,500 mecu for Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, which is exactly the way in which we should be helping. We are well aware of the pressures on developing countries and we shall consider the matter as time rolls by. We hope very much that there will be a withdrawal from Kuwait, which will end the extra pressure on the developing countries.

Sir David Steel: Does the Minister accept that, as I have seen for myself in the past few days, Jordan's greater and urgent need is for further help in dealing with the problem of transit refugees through the country? Will she acknowledge that Jordan has done a magnificent job but is still out of pocket?

Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have already helped Jordan through the various international agencies, which I saw when I was there in September. We are in touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Geneva-based agencies this morning issued an appeal. We are working on a contingency plan and when I have more details I may be able to respond to the right hon. Gentleman.

Eastern Bloc (Food Distribution)

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to assist with the distribution of food within the Soviet Union and other former eastern bloc countries.

Mrs. Chalker: We believe that economic reform in the Soviet Union is essential if a prosperous and democratic society is to emerge. Reform of food distribution systems is a priority under the know-how fund. However, we


deplore the Soviet army's action in Lithuania and we are discussing the whole issue with our EC partners in Brussels today.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I had lunch with President Landsbergis in the House just two months ago. Even then, he was fearful that his country would be taken over by the red army. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is crucial in the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc is not so much the production and supply of food as its distribution? Does she have any proposals to improve the distribution of food within those countries and is she doing anything to assist studies on that aspect?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no famine in the USSR, which had a record grain harvest—better than the predicted vegetable harvest. The problem is distribution. That is why I am glad that British expertise from private companies has been used in an attempt to determine what can be done to improve food distribution. The Anderson Consulting firm has examined the Soviet bread consortium, and the British Food Consortium has carried out a study of the food chain around Kiev. Major steps can be taken, but, of course, we wish to help the people and any further use of force by the Soviet Government could jeopardise western aid to the Soviet Union greatly.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Lady accept that we all wish to see genuine assistance given to the emergent democracies and, indeed, the ordinary citizens of the Soviet Union? Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issue a clear condemnation of the behaviour of President Gorbachev and the Soviet troops in Lithuania and of the continuing threat to the Baltic states, both of which are in clear contradiction to United Nations article 1? We want a clear statement of condemnation from the west at this stage.

Mrs. Chalker: That is why in my initial reply I condemned the action of the Soviet army. The matter is being discussed within the European Community today. We shall have Foreign and Commonwealth diplomatic questions on Wednesday, when I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have a lot more to say on the matter.
The Baltic states are eligible to receive our aid, but, as yet, they do not seem to be seriously affected by food shortages. It seems that the shortages are in the large industrial cities. We shall give them help and we are already giving technical assistance to the Baltic states. We shall continue to do so if possible.

Sir Bernard Braine: While I imagine that everyone in the House supports the idea of giving food or any other type of aid to the hard-pressed countries of eastern Europe, is not it untimely and even a little indecent to suggest that we should give aid to the Soviet Union at a moment when it is reverting to type and sending armed troops into Lithuania, which, like the other two Baltic states, was forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union and deserves its freedom?

Mrs. Chalker: As my right hon. Friend knows full well, I agree with him entirely. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, there is a real danger that the Soviet Union will go back into its Stalinist shell. The freedom of the Baltic states is important and we sincerely hope that the measures put into force some months ago will be allowed to continue to help the Soviet people by the Government of the Soviet Union and its president seeing the sense of stopping the abominable behaviour that we saw over the weekend in Lithuania.

Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Lady is surely right to call it abominable behaviour. Does she agree that it is also wrong to continue giving credit to the Soviet Union and transfering high technology, both of which should be stopped instantly by the European Community and the western democracies?

Mr. Chalker: I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman's points are being discussed at this very moment in Brussels. We telephoned Brussels before we came to the House to answer questions today. I cannot: given the right hon. Gentleman an answer as to what has happened there, but we hope to do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend consider the problems that might arise in central European countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia if there are refugees from the Baltic states? More food aid may well need to be directed to Poland and Czechoslovakia to cope with the terrible problems provoked by the Soviet Union's aggression towards its own people.

Mrs. Chalker: I can assure my hon. Friend that, if Poland or any of the other states needs help to cope with refugees from the Soviet Union, we shall be ready to help. It is most important that diplomatic pressure from all over the world should have its effect on the Government of the Soviet Union so that this deplorable behaviour ceases forthwith in the Baltic states and everywhere else.

Mrs. Clwyd: We all share the great concern about repression in Lithuania. Does the Minister agree that there is plenty of evidence that the Soviet people wish to see a further development of glasnost and perestroika? Given that today she has said that it is important to help those people, may we have her assurance that she will honour the pledges made by the European Community to give emergency food aid to help Soviet citizens weather the winter?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady knows full well that when the Foreign Ministers of the European Community sit together in Brussels and discuss this very issue I cannot give any undertaking about what they may have decided. I take her point that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) who raised the question said, the food problem in the Soviet Union is not famine, but distribution. If we can help the Soviet Union to tackle that problem, we shall be making a long-term investment to help the Soviet people make the best of their production.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for tomorrow, Tuesday 15 January, will now be a debate on the crisis in the Gulf on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The Export and Investment Guarantees Bill previously set down for that day will be taken shortly.

Dr. John Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for arranging yet another debate on the grave crisis in the Gulf. It will enable us to place on record our emphatic support for the United Nations and for all efforts to find a peaceful solution. If, regrettably, armed conflict occurs—we have never ruled that out—the British forces will have our total support.
We have witnessed deplorable occurrences in Lithuania in the past 24 hours. Will the Leader of the House arrange as soon as is convenient to the House for the Foreign Secretary to make an oral statement on those events? Can that be discussed and agreed through the usual channels?

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously the first matter which the hon. Gentleman raised will be the feature of tomorrow's debate. Every effort has been made to achieve a peaceful outcome, and I am grateful for his support for the British forces.
The whole House will be greatly concerned about events in Lithuania and I well understand why the hon. Gentleman raised that matter. The Government strongly deplore the action of the Soviet forces. We have made our views clearly known to the Soviet authorities. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Brussels today at an emergency meeting to discuss the events in Lithuania as well as the situation in the Gulf. Apart from that meeting, the Government are seeking clarification from the Soviet authorities.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep the House fully informed as the situation develops in the coming days. We can discuss the appropriate means and timing of that through the usual channels. My right hon. Friend will certainly wish to make some sort of statement.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tomorrow's important debate on the Gulf should reflect in its tone as well as in its content the seriousness and gravity of the unwarranted aggression and intransigence of Iraq? Does he also agree that its tone will compare dramatically with the despicable attitude of some parts of the media which seem to treat the growing prospect of war as something akin to a world cup football spectacular?

Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says. I do not want today to go into the substance of tomorrow's debate, but I am sure that such matters will be raised.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Leader of the House aware that, by choosing to table an Adjournment motion tomorrow, the Government have excluded, by a procedural device, any possibility for amendments to be tabled by those who believe that sanctions should be given more time to work or that there should be further

negotiation? The Government's handling of the matter is in marked contrast to that of the American Congress, where the Senate has been allowed to vote, and has voted, as has the House of Representatives.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware—I raised this with Mr. Speaker this afternoon—that this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn? Since such a war could end with the exchange of nuclear weapons, it is an outrage to parliamentary democracy that the Government should have chosen to use this mechanism for giving the House the chance to express its view on such a grave matter for the world and for the people of this country.

Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that it was clear that the Government had given this House many opportunities to debate the situation in the Gulf and that we are taking the first appropriate opportunity this week to have a debate on it again. The previous debate was on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and we judged that it was appropriate to have the debate tomorrow again on a motion for the Adjournment to enable all shades of view to be expressed and to allow the maximum flexibility for relevant issues to be raised. I think that that is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members endorse the request of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a statement by the Foreign Secretary on the disgraceful events in Lithuania so that we can express our hope that economic aid will be cut to the Soviet Union as a sign of our total and utter disgust at what its troops did yesterday?

Mr. MacGregor: As I have already said, I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. It is right that, at an appropriate time, my right hon. Friend should make a statement to the House. Clearly it was not appropriate for a statement to be made today, given that my right hon. Friend is in Brussels at the Foreign Affairs Council discussing these matters.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a significant difference between the previous debates that terminated on a motion for the Adjournment, which allowed the issues to be examined and ventilated, and tomorrow's debate, which will be on the eve of a possible war? A few moments ago he said that tomorrow's debate should allow all shades of opinion to be registered. But the debate should also allow all shades of opinions to be registered on a vote.
What we really require is for the Government to table a motion of Government policy that is capable of amendment. It is unacceptable for people to be forced to vote for or against the Adjournment and then to have that technical vote interpreted exactly as the Government want.

Mr. MacGregor: There will be an opportunity for hon. Members to raise all sorts of issues and to express their views in the House tomorrow. Last time there was, of course, a vote on the Adjournment and no doubt that could happen again if necessary. This is the right way for a debate of this sort to proceed.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the two previous occasions when we debated this issue there was a serious discussion about the imminence of war? Tomorrow will not be the first occasion on which we shall be confronted by an imminent war but rather the first occasion when a date associated with United Nations sanctions has been identified.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the House wants to debate this matter and that is why I made today's statement and why we took the decision to have that debate at the most sensible earliest opportunity.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Does the Leader of the House agree that, by refusing the House of Commons the opportunity to legitimise or reject Government policy, the Government will do nothing other than to reconfirm in many minds the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the Government have no right to ask young men to die in the Gulf if they do not have the courage to ask the House to vote on a specific motion?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not believe that that is the case. In tomorrow's debate, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will clearly outline the Government's position.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend recognises that many hon. Members believe that events in Lithuania threaten world peace every bit as much as events in the Gulf. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary makes a statement will the House also have the opportunity to debate that subject fully so that the House can send a clear message to Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet Government that invasion of Lithuania is no more acceptable than invasion of Kuwait?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. The views of the House can be expressed in other ways, not simply through debate. The right first step would be for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House or answer a question at the appropriate time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome tomorrow's debate. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it has been agreed between the Front-Bench spokesmen that the debate should be on the Adjournment? Will he also confirm that, if there is war during the following days, tomorrow's debate should not be seen as the Government's acceptance of the inevitability of war, even at this late stage, and that procedures for debating matters arising from the conflict in the Gulf should be the subject of immediate consultation among all parties and, if possible, of agreement among all parties?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that on this matter, as on subjects such as events in Lithuania at present, there will be the need for continuous parliamentary discussion. I certainly intend to discuss the arrangements for such debates through the usual channels.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer he gave a moment ago on the subject of Lithuania? Events there may move rapidly and Mr. Gorbachev may not be in complete control. Suggestions have been made today that he is not in complete control and that other elements are insisting on

repressing the people of Lithuania. The people of the three Baltic states have been oppressed for a generation. It is not sufficient for the Foreign Secretary merely to make a statement and answer questions. If that were accompanied by the promise of an early debate, the House would be content—at least until the debate took place—and then we could see the shape of things to come.

Mr. MacGregor: I wholly understand my right hon. Friend's concern, which I share. I was simply saying that the first appropriate step would be for my right hon. Friend to make a statement, but clearly, as events unfolded, we would wish to see what other parliamentary opportunities there should be.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Leader of the House accept that the fact that the exchanges have inevitably and rightly concentrated on the problems in the Gulf and the Baltic states underlines the serious concern of seven aid agencies that launched a campaign last week to remind the House and the country that people are dying today in large numbers in Ethiopia, Africa, Mozambique and Angola? Does he accept that that is such a serious matter that time should be found for a debate on it?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government made a statement on that issue just before the Christmas recess, recognising the seriousness of the position and indicating the action that we were taking. We made that statement then because we thought it right to inform the House before the recess. Clearly we shall have to see what happens and consider the appropriate way to keep the House informed about the position and the Government's action; but that is not an issue for tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that questions to the Leader of the House—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: It is an important issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is, of course, important, but questions should be directed to the statement and not to wider issues.

Mr. Derek Conway: In tomorrow's debate some hon. Members may wish to refer to the effectiveness of sanctions. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend discuss with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary placing in the Library a list of those countries that we know have been breaking sanctions so that hon. Members can compare those countries' actions with the amount of aid they receive from British taxpayers?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's request to my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is very difficult for Back Benchers to be called in short debates such as tomorrow's? Will he grant time for a debate on what is to happen to the thousands of casualties when they come to this country in the event of war breaking out—given the admission by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday that there would be thousands of casualties? The Under-Secretary of State for Health says that everything is prepared, yet all medical opinion stresses that we are not prepared and that we cannot cope with the


number of casualties that might be incurred in the event of a conflict. Is not it a disgrace that a Department of Health document omitted a chapter that warned of the casualties that would be incurred due to gas and other noxious fumes? Should not the public be told what could face our service men and women in the Gulf in the event of this wholly unnecessary, cruel war breaking out?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to go into the substance of what the hon. Lady has said, because that is a matter for the debate tomorrow. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, this statement is about tomorrow's debate and tomorrow's business: we are to hold a full debate on the Gulf tomorrow. That is as far as I can go at this stage. The important point is that we are providing a full day for the debate tomorrow.

Mr. Robert Adley: Although some of us have had concerns about United States policy in the middle east over the years, is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has rightly said, it would be unthinkable for the House to do anything other than to give its wholehearted support to our forces in the Gulf and, through them, to the Government's decisions? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the procedure that he has announced has been agreed between the usual channels?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I think that the procedure that I have announced is for the convenience of the House and is the right way to proceed tomorrow.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Leader of the House accept that my party thinks it totally unacceptable that a major decision on international policy should be taken by the House without a substantive discussion on a substantive motion? If that is good enough for the United States Congress, it should be good enough for the United Kingdom House of Commons.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that it is equally urgent that we debate Lithuania? Many of us are worried that this is yet another unholy carve-up between the great powers—that there is collaboration between sections of the Bush Government and the Soviet Union whereby support for the United States position in the Gulf is traded off for a lack of intervention to defend the human rights of the people of Lithuania?

Mr. MacGregor: Tomorrow's debate will be a substantive debate. As for a debate on Lithuania, we must see how events unfold. I have given the House a clear assurance that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will report to it at the earliest appropriate moment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that we have another statement after this one and that we shall debate this matter tomorrow. I shall call three more Members from each side and then move on.

Mr. John Marshall: I welcome tomorrow's debate, which will give hon. Members a chance to underline to Saddam Hussein, in all his pigheaded obstinacy, the determination of the vast

majority of the British people that unprovoked aggression can never be condoned and that appeasement is a path not to peace but to further aggression.

Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the messages going out from this House tomorrow will be very clear.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Leader of the House ensure that before tomorrow's debate the House will be given a substantive assessment of the various issues that will arise if a conflict occurs? Only recently the Prime Minister said that he hoped that the conflict would be short and sharp. Is that a hope or a reasonable expectation? Evidence on oil and on the environment has not been presented to the House in any form, nor have we been told of the economic consequences for the nation of such a conflict. Surely before the debate we ought to be provided with more assessments by Departments and Ministers.

Mr. MacGregor: The point of the debate is to go over much of this ground. That is one of the many reasons why we are holding it tomorrow.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that what we are discussing now, and will be discussing tomorrow, is the fact that, for once in 50 years, the whole world has decided that the United Nations is right. It has passed 12 resolutions. The debate tomorrow is not about America or Britain but about the world against one demonic man. Surely the House should say not that there is a need for debate but that that man should know before it is too late that the world—not just Britain or America—is united in its belief that he should get out of Kuwait. If he does not get out of Kuwait, it will be not America's or Britain's fault but his.

Mr. MacGregor: In recent weeks that view has been expressed loudly, clearly and at length. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Tomorrow's debate will provide another opportunity for hon. Members to express my hon. Friend's view.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: While I am sure that there is widespread agreement in the House about the murderous activities of Saddam Hussein, surely there are profound and genuinely sincere differences of view about President Bush's interpretation of resolution 678 and other matters relating to the middle east crisis. It is disgraceful that we are not to have a two-day debate because every hon. Member must have some constituents serving with the military forces in Saudi Arabia. If, because of the sleekit way in which arrangements for the debate have been handled, we cannot have a two-day debate, may we ensure that every speaker in the debate is confined to 10 minutes so that most of us who have constituents out there may at least get a chance to voice our genuinely sincere views on this deeply worrying affair?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's procedural point about tomorrow's debate is not a matter for me. However, I am sure that his suggestion has been heard. It is important to stress again that the House is, absolutely rightly, being given the opportunity to debate this matter at the earliest convenient opportunity on our return. Obviously, it will not by a long way be the last occasion on which we debate these matters.

Mr. John Biffen: In view of the evident deep feeling about tomorrow's debate, and because historically on such occasions every opportunity is given for minority views to be expressed, will my right hon. Friend at least discuss with the Opposition the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule?

Mr. MacGregor: We can certainly consider that matter through the usual channels.

Ms. Clare Short: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House to reconsider? This Parliament will be brought into total disrepute if we do not have a vote on the matter of war in the Gulf. We saw what happened in the American Senate where each member had to put his points on the line. Under this procedure, power is concentrated in the Executive and there is no way in which the Executive can be made accountable to our constituents on the question of a war that could mean not just the deaths of our service men but a horrendous war in the middle east. This is not the mother of Parliaments if that is the way in which we conduct our business. It is just a blanket for the Executive to do whatever they wish.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I think that this is the right way to proceed. The very strong majority view was perfectly clear from the debate and the vote on this procedural method that we had before the Christmas recess. What we recommend for tomorrow will enable all views to be expressed and will also enable that message to be made clear.

Dr. Cunningham: It may be for the convenience of the House for me to say that on Wednesday, which is an Opposition Supply day, we have set down for debate the crisis in the hospital service, and the consequences for the British economy and people of electricity privatisation.

Rail Accident (Cannon Street)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the railway accident that occurred at Cannon Street station on Tuesday 8 January.
At about 8.44 last Tuesday morning, the 7.58 Sevenoaks to Cannon Street train collided with the buffer stops at Cannon Street station. The effect of the impact was most severe in the fifth and sixth coaches of the 10-coach train. One passenger died and more than 200 were injured.
The House will want to join me in expressing our sympathy to the bereaved and our hopes for the speedy recovery of the injured. I also pay tribute to the professionalism of the emergency services. The response by all involved was magnificent.
British Rail has accepted responsibility for the accident and is carrying out its own internal inquiry. The British Transport police are also conducting an investigation.
Officers from the Health and Safety Executive, including Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, attended the scene of the accident immediately. After consultation with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, I have appointed the deputy chief inspecting officer of railways to carry out this inquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. His inquiry will be wholly independent and will be held in public. The report will be published. I have asked him to report to me as quickly as possible. British Rail will, of course, act immediately should the need for any urgent measures emerge during the various investigations.
Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's investigation began on the day of the accident. The train was examined and some testing took place before it was removed from the station. The train has now been moved to a British Rail depot where British Rail engineers have been conducting further examinations and tests under the inspectorate's supervision. The forensic capabilities of the Health and Safety Executive will be at the disposal of the inspectorate, if they are needed. The House will appreciate that these examinations and tests are being undertaken extremely thoroughly. The cause of the accident is not yet clear and it is unwise to speculate on the conclusions of the inquiry until all the evidence is available.
There has, however, been widespread speculation about the age of this rolling stock, which is some of the oldest on BR, and about the number of passengers on the train. The inquiry will of course be considering these aspects, but there appear to be no grounds for concluding at this stage that the age of the rolling stock was a material factor in causing the accident.
There has also been comment about the consequences of the train being heavily loaded, with many passengers standing. In his report on the Clapham accident, Sir Anthony Hidden accepted the view of safety experts that, in that accident, standing passengers were at no greater risk of death or injury than those who were seated and that if the trains had been overloaded, those passengers having to stand as a result would not have been placed at any greater risk. Nevertheless, he recommended that BR should ensure that overall train loading criteria were achieved and that the criteria should be kept under review. In response to this recommendation, BR made it clear that


strong demand growth has created a problem of overcrowding on some routes, and that it is committed to tackling this through investment in new rolling stock. I understand the very natural concern about overcrowding. I can assure the House that the inquiry will consider the number of passengers that were on the train and any implications that this may have had.
These commuter services have some of the oldest trains, but neither the Government nor BR is complacent about this. We have approved both the replacement of the present trains with new rolling stock which has higher capacity and the lengthening of the platforms on the stations they will use, in order to give passengers a better quality of service. The first tranche of the order was approved by the Government in 1989 and is now being manufactured. Further orders are among the highest priorities within BR's corporate plan.
More generally, overcrowding is being addressed through the investment programme, which is running at about £1 million a day on Network SouthEast alone and is due to continue at this level. Much of the expenditure is already authorised by the Government and much of the investment is already under way. Timing of achievement of the train loading standards will depend on factors such as the capacity of the manufacturing industry, the size of the investment programme that can be managed effectively, and changes in demand for rail services and patterns of demand growth.
British Rail's top priority is safety. Railways are already one of the safest means of transport, and British Rail is working to develop an even stronger safety culture throughout the organisation. The board has undertaken a comprehensive review of all safety procedures and training.
Finally, I should like to assure the House that there is no financial constraint on necessary and cost-effective safety expenditure. Last July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) announced a further increase in British Rail's external financing limit for 1990–91, which allows the board to spend £70 million on safety expenditure in this year alone. This year's PSO grant was also increased, largely to take account of additional safety expenditure. In our public expenditure plans for the next three years, we have endorsed in full British Rail's planned expenditure of some £330 million on additional safety measures. There is no question of improving efficiency at the expense of safety. Nor is there any lack of investment, with railway investment now at its highest level for 30 years and a further increase planned for the next three years.

Mr. John Prescott: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer the deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of the man who was killed and to all those who were injured in the terrible tragedy at Cannon Street station last Tuesday morning.
As in recent and terrible tragedies—King's Cross, Clapham and Purley—we record yet again our greatest admiration for our emergency services, which appear always to exceed what we can expect from them. There is no doubt that the work of the emergency services in responding so swiftly and acting so promptly with such skill and courage in the most difficult circumstances saved

lives. Once again, the House and the entire nation will admire their sheer professionalism and dedication. We are eternally indebted to them.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, although historically rail safety has been at a high level and an increasing one, in recent years safety standards have been falling? In comparing the first half of the 1980s with the second half, we see that general train accidents—this is according to the railway inspectorate's report—have increased by more than 20 per cent. Collisions with buffers —this is relevant to the Cannon Street tragedy—have increased by 30 per cent. I recognise that the inspectorate's report states that there has been a fall in significant railway accidents, but that information is incorrectly presented. That was confirmed by the inspectorate this morning. I hope that the Secretary of State will discuss with the Health and Safety Executive an accurate method of presenting railway safety statistics so that there is no disagreement between us about the facts.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the excessive number of injuries at Cannon Street last week was influenced by overcrowding? The Hidden report stated that those standing in railway carriages were at no greater risk than those seated, but the reality is that the greater the number of passengers on a train the greater is the possibility of serious injury. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Hidden was concerned about the safety of standing passengers and that his report contained the recommendation that in carriages of the sort that were involved in the Cannon Street tragedy no more than 10 per cent. of passengers should be standing? With that sort of rolling stock, that means that no more than 16 passengers should be standing in each coach .
I conducted a survey last Wednesday and another one this morning between 7.30 and 9 am. The results of this morning's survey showed that on six separate journeys between Cannon Street and London Bridge this morning there were over 120 passengers standing in each carriage and not the 16 as recommended in the Hidden report. Does the Secretary of State accept that the British Railways Board assured the House and the Department of Transport on 20 August 1990 in a written statement that the recommendation concerning overcrowding had already been implemented? That misled the House, and that has been demonstrated by my surveys and by the daily experience of thousands of people. I drew that to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention when we met last Wednesday. Will he inform the House of the explanation that British Rail has given for the deception?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the rolling stock that was involved in the crash at Cannon Street was over 40 years old and that some of the stock that continues to come into Cannon Street on the route in question is over 65 years old? Indeed, the age profile of Network SouthEast's stock is the oldest of any regional network in the United Kingdom or, indeed, in the world. That is the direct result of an inadequate Networker replacement investment programme. There can be no other explanation.
Does the Secretary of State realise that the average age of Network SouthEast's rolling stock is twice that of the stock of the northern region? That is primarily because the financial arrangements affecting British Rail allow the northern regions, through their passenger transport authorities, a subsidy of nearly £100 million a year to replace their rolling stock. That subsidy is denied to the


south-east region. I believe that, if we want safer stock, it is better to replace it as quickly as possible and change the silly rule that subsidies can be given to replace stock in the north but not in the south-east region, which is the most congested network in the United Kingdom. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the rule.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail proposed in 1986, during the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry into Network SouthEast, that overcrowding could be reduced—the Department was aware of this in 1986—by lengthening platforms to enable 12-coach Networker trains to be introduced? That would have required extra investment of £200 million, which is equivalent to the amount that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to take from the public service obligation tranche for Network SouthEast. Is not this the time for the Secretary of State to reverse that policy so that an emergency programme can be introduced to replace stock and to provide more comfort and safety?
The Secretary of State will have the full support of the House and of the public—particularly as he is new to the job—if he will review the crazy financial framework within which British Rail operates, which forces it to decide projects on the basis of the rate of financial return that they will offer, rather than the quality of safety and service that they will provide. In the past few years, British Rail management has become obsessed with meeting the Government's priority of producing a privatised railway rather than a safe, good-quality railway of the kind that the travelling public want.

Mr. Rifkind: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks about the quality of the emergency services and the superb contribution that they made on the occasion in question, as one would have expected.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that British Rail safety standards have fallen in recent years. I cannot support that interpretation. In fact, the total number of fatalities has been falling and last year the number was the lowest since 1983. We naturally hope that that trend will continue.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to review the way in which railway safety statistics are prepared and provided. I shall be happy to consider any specific points that he wishes to make in that respect and see what improvements can be made.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the injuries inflicted on passengers in the Cannon Street incident might have been influenced by the number travelling on the train. There is no evidence as yet that the accident was caused by the number of passengers on the train. However, no doubt the inquiry will consider whether the severity of the injuries and the number of people injured were influenced by that factor. Many of the passengers who were standing in carriages at the time of the impact had been sitting throughout the journey but chose to stand as the train arrived in the station. That often happens on rail journeys, and it is something on which the inquiry may want to comment.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the progress report published by British Rail some time ago which suggested that Hidden's recommendation on overcrowding had been implemented. He was right to draw attention to the inaccuracy of that claim, for it contained at least an ambiguity. British Rail intended to say that it had accepted the need to implement that recommendation, but I agree

that the way in which the progress report was written implied that it had already been implemented. That point needs to be corrected.
As to the age of rolling stock and the lack of investment, many take the view that, during the 1970s and in the early 1980s, there was less investment in British Rail under successive Governments than might have been appropriate, but that has changed considerably over the past five or six years. At present, Network SouthEast intends to invest more than £1,300 million over the next three years, which represents a 28 per cent. increase over the past three years. That indicates the priority being given to improvements not just by British Rail as a whole but particularly within Network SouthEast—including modernisation of the rolling stock, which is relevant to the Cannon Street incident.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the way in which proposed investment is appraised has a damaging effect on safety. He ought to be aware that proposed safety expenditure is not subject to the same investment criteria as other investment. When expenditure on safety has been required, British Rail and the Government have an excellent record, which I am happy to defend.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the statement relates to the distressing accident at Cannon Street, and that right hon. and hon. Members should not ask questions on wider issues.

Mr. Bob Dunn: My constituents will be reassured by the Secretary of State's confirmation today that the new Networker rolling stock is still on target for introduction in September 1991.
To put matters in perspective, can my right hon. and learned Friend say what proportion of recent collisions was caused by the use of old rolling stock, how many collisions involved new rolling stock and in how many cases the cause was not clear?

Mr. Rifkind: I can certainly confirm that the Networker programme for Kent inner suburban services, including Sevenoaks, is on schedule. The first 400 vehicles are on order, with delivery due to start in September 1991.
With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question—buffer accidents and the relevance of the age of the stock—it is difficult to draw general conclusions. For example, the House might be interested to know that the provisional details for 1990 for passenger train incidents involving buffer stop collisions suggest that, of the 23 collisions that took place, seven involved old stock that was comparable in age to that in the Cannon Street incident and as many as 10 involved new rolling stock. Details are not yet available for the remaining six collisions. Clearly there can be a number of reasons for accidents of this kind. Sadly, even new rolling stock is not exempted from the risk of incidents of the kind that we have experienced in the past year.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy and thanks. Given the apparent figures every day—I looked down from the signal box at London Bridge station three weeks ago—for the number of people standing on trains and for loading the front part of the train with standing passengers, not merely in the last few minutes of the journey, it is not sufficient to wait for technical changes. It


is necessary for instructions and a change of practice to be implemented soon if injuries are to be minimised. That is a matter of common sense, apart from Sir Anthony Hidden's recommendations.
Also, the Secretary of State could usefully assure the House and the travelling public, first, that the recommendations about the rolling stock being appropriate to reduce the amount of impact damage have been implemented and, secondly, that trains coming into termini have back-up procedures for slowing them down and stopping them, because that was clearly one of the features of this incident.

Mr. Rifkind: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said. Certainly a significant number of the passengers on the train joined at London Bridge, thereby swelling the numbers for the last, albeit short, stage of the journey. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to that factor. The design of the rolling stock and its reaction on impact is a technical matter about which the inquiry may wish to make recommendations, and British Rail will clearly be anxious to identify whether improvements can be made. New rolling stock is being introduced on this service, as on all the other services in Network SouthEast, and it will have the benefit of the latest design technology information.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: A number of my constituents are still in hospital recovering from this tragic accident and I wish to extend my sympathy to them, to their relatives and to all others involved in this unhappy situation.
I wish to raise three points with my right hon. and learned Friend. First, are the buffers at Cannon Street station of the same high quality, with the same ability to withstand impact, as those at other London termini? If not, can action be taken to improve them? Secondly, will my right hon. and learned Friend hold urgent talks with the chairman of British Rail on whether the programme to renew rolling stock, which is in hand, can be accelerated? I accept that this accident may not have been directly related to old rolling stock, but there is no doubt that new rolling stock is, as one would expect, safer for passengers in impacts of this kind. Quite apart from the safety factors, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, in his new job, is fully aware of the low standards of accommodation provided for constituents travelling from this part of south-east England. We are at the end of the programme for renewing rolling stock and I can assure him that if the programme could be accelerated it would have a welcome effect on millions of people.
Finally, can my right hon. and learned Friend give us any idea of how rapidly the initial findings of the inquiry will be made public? I consider it most important that the ritual of inquiry be carried out rapidly and that the public are given information with expediency.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I understand that the buffers have virtually been removed by the railway inspectorate so that they can be properly examined, as their design may be significant with regard to the inquiries.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the replacement of rolling stock could be accelerated. Apart from the question of resources, there is the question of the manufacturing

capacity of those replacing the stock, but I believe that good progress is being made. At present, over 80 per cent. of the Network SouthEast fleet is either less than 15 years old or refurbished to modern standards. Having said that, however, I agree with my hon. Friend that in some parts of Network SouthEast the quality of rolling stock is less impressive than that in many other parts of the country. That must be addressed, seriously and constructively, within the framework of British Rail's overall requirements.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the findings of the inquiry would be made public. The most important requirement will be for any interim recommendations to be made available to British Rail so that the necessary steps can be taken. The report will be made public in due course, and, as soon as it is available, it will be made public to my hon. Friend and to others interested in these matters.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to my written question and the answer given, on 15 March 1988, by the then Minister for Public Transport, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell)? My question, which can be found in column 495 of the Official Report, concerned brake failures on multiple unit trains. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in his reply, his hon. Friend said that the matter would be dealt with in the forthcoming report on the Walton-on-Naze accident, which happened on 12 August 1987?
Is not it a fact that that accident occurred when a modern sliding-door multiple unit electric train came into that one-end station at about 50 mph—fortunately with only 12 passengers? Is not it also a fact that the report on the accident has not yet been published, although the accident took place three and a half years ago? If that is not suppression, does not the delay illustrate the fact that the Government are less concerned with safety first than they pretend?

Mr. Rifkind: I am concerned about the fact that the report has not yet been published, but its non-publication is not for the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The person responsible for drafting it was seconded as an assessor to the Clapham inquiry, and has therefore not finished the drafting.

Mr. Spearing: That is not good enough.

Mr. Rifkind: I am not suggesting that it is good enough; I am explaining the background. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of two things: first, that any lessons to be learnt from that inquiry have already been passed on to British Rail; and, secondly, that the brake that failed in the incident that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned involved an entirely different design from that at Cannon Street. Having said that, let me add that I share his desire to see the report published as soon as possible. I hope that the inspector in question will be able to finish drafting it so that it can be published in the next few weeks or months. As soon as that is done, it will be published.

Dame Peggy Fenner: My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted the truth of comments made about rolling stock in the south-east. Does he realise that commuters from the Medway towns stand throughout their journey every morning? There is no question of their standing merely from London Bridge to Cannon Street.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend himself investigate the claim that manufacturers would not he able to accelerate the provision of rolling stock? Surely, during a period of recession, we can expect manufacturers to expedite its provision.

Mr. Rifkind: A number of factors have to be taken into account, but my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, in addition to the 400 vehicles already on order, with delivery due to start in September next, the project also includes £120 million of fixed works programmes, with platform lengthening at 63 stations out of Cannon Street and Charing Cross. That implies the approval of over 400 additional vehicles to complete the replacement of the current fleet and to cater for growth in demand.

Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the last 15 years hon. Members have been given assurances by successive chairmen of British Rail that all the outdated rolling stock on Network SouthEast would be replaced? However, Kent suburban routes are still operating with single compartment, non-corridor coaches that date back to before world war two. In view of our past disappointments, is the Secretary of State able to say clearly whether he has a target date for the replacement of all outdated rolling stock on Network SouthEast? If he has, what, please, is it?

Mr. Rifkind: I said earlier that it could be argued that there was insufficient investment in the railways in the 1970s and the early 1980s. I am happy to say that during the last five or six years there has been a significant change and that there will continue to be change in the right direction. Since 1985, the average age of the Network SouthEast fleet has been reduced from 24 to 19 years. We expect the age of the fleet to continue to be reduced and we hope that all the older stock will be replaced within a reasonable period. Substantial progress is being made. The investment resources available to Network SouthEast alone are of a very high order—£1.3 billion over the next three years. That is not a small sum of money by any standards.

Mr. Roger Sims: Unhappily, a number of my constituents were involved in the crash. I know that both they and their families wish to endorse the comments that have been made about the prompt and efficient reaction of the emergency services. Thousands of my constituents use the services to London Bridge, Charing Cross and Cannon Street every day, as do both I and members of my family.
There was considerable concern when my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor announced the phasing out of the public service obligation grant. It was felt that it would lead to substantial fare increases and to economies that might affect safety standards. My right hon. and learned Friend will understand if last week both of those fears appeared to have been realised. Will he reconsider the phasing out of the public service obligation grant?
I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) about the inquiry. Most of us were under the impression that the purpose of a buffer was to do precisely what its name implies: to absorb the impact if a train fails to come to a complete

stop. In this case, that does not seem to have happened. One therefore has to question whether the buffers were up to the job.

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, he is right to draw attention to the apparent failure of the buffers to do the job for which they were designed. The inquiry will wish to consider that point.
The point that I wish to emphasise most regarding the public service obligation grant is that whether it goes up or down is not relevant to the question of safety. That is determined by quite different considerations. My hon. Friend may have noticed that, in yesterday's edition of the Observer, British Rail's safety director, Mr. Maurice Holmes, was quoted as saying:
We have not been refused money for any essential safety scheme. Where we are not progressing as fast as we would like, the obstacles have been practical ones.
My hon. Friend can therefore rest assured that the Government have always given the greatest priority to safety expenditure, on both Network SouthEast and other sectors of the rail network.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that this accident has increased the widespread unease among our constituents about the decrepit, antiquated and often squalid state of the railways in London and the south-east? That unease was exacerbated when they heard of the impossible hours being worked by engineers, as revealed at the Clapham inquiry. Does he accept that the policy of eliminating public subsidy to the railways is crazily mistaken and that until it is altered the public will not believe that profit is not being put before service and safety?

Mr. Rifkind: We are conscious of the need to ensure that those who carry out tasks on the rail network are not put under strain or are expected to work unnecessary hours. Overtime has been reduced and British Rail hopes to make further progress on that matter. The hon. Gentleman's point is well understood.

Mr. James Coachman: My right hon. and learned Friend was right to highlight the number of people who changed trains at London Bridge for the last half mile into Cannon Street. A number of those who did so would have been my constituents who travel from Rainham, which is one of the busiest commuter stations in south-east England. The people of Rainham, who pay about £1,500 a year for the privilege of standing all the way into London every day, are dismayed by the deferment to 1995 of the Networker trains for the outer suburban lines to my constituency and beyond. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the original programme will be reinstated as soon as possible so that they can expect the Networker trains at the same time as other commuters in Kent?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to British Rail when I am next in contact with it to ascertain its view on the matter. There are a number of demands on British Rail's investment programme. The Government have initiated the largest investment programme in British Rail for no less than 30 years, which should ensure substantial improvements to the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents and to those of hon. Members from other parts of the country.

Mr. Tony Banks: As a Scot, is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman impressed by the amount of all-party anger in the south-east about the way in which our commuters are treated when they travel on British Rail? Although we understand that we must await the outcome of the inquiry, does he seriously expect us to believe that there is no connection between the age of the rolling stock and the amount of carnage and injury that appears to have resulted from a train hitting the buffers at 5 mph? Will he give us an assurance that all rolling stock of that vintage will be taken out of service while immediate investigations and examinations are made to ensure that nothing similar occurs? Although that might result in some dislocation, it is far better to be temporarily dislocated than long-term impaired.

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if any rolling stock is considered to be unsafe, whatever its age and however modern or old, it is immediately withdrawn from service. That is the criterion that should be applied. The design of the rolling stock may be relevant to the nature of the injuries that were caused, but we have no reason to believe that its age was a contributory cause of the accident. Those matters will be examined by the inspectorate in its inquiry. Its views will be made public and if there is any contrary evidence it will have to be fully considered and presented, not just to the inspectorate but to the public as a whole.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Thousands of my constituents stand on the trains every day. They find it almost incomprehensible that they should be charged the same as for sitting. At various airports, the buses that meet aircraft are designed to enable people to stand in safety and comfort. Is it beyond the wit of British Rail to ensure a system whereby there is a difference in the fare charged for those who sit and those who stand, and that some of the rolling stock is designed for people to be able to stand in comfort? As that is what they will always have to do, why cannot they do it in safety and comfort?

Mr. Rifkind: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, but normally an airline knows in advance how many passengers it will carry. It knows that from the moment that the journey begins, whereas there is some unpredictability for railway services. I shall draw my hon. Friend's point to British Rail's attention.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Although the Secretary of State makes great play of the permission to borrow money to deal with safety, he ignores the fact that safety is made up of many different factors, such as the pressure caused by the closure of maintenance depots, the pressure on men to work long hours and the pressure on people who are crushed into wholly inadequate rolling stock. All those factors contribute to accidents. Will he guarantee that the position will change within the next two years? Companies are capable of building whatever rolling stock is necessary; and until the Government sold them off they were highly efficient.

Mr. Rifkind: I have already informed the House that we have the highest investment programme for over 30 years. The fact that I am able to say that indicates that the performance of the Labour Government in investing in the railways was not impressive.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I represent a constituency in which up to half of the working population commutes to London every day? A crash such as last week's increases people's apprehensions considerably and those apprehensions have been played upon. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accentuate the fact that a reduction in operating subsidies does not have an impact on capital investment or on safety? He has told the House that capital investment is the highest on record and that the safety recommendations in the Hidden report have been met in full.
My right hon. and learned Friend is new to his job and therefore may not be fully aware of the resentment felt in Kent that we are the last in the queue for the introduction of the Networkers. Will he take seriously the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and get a move on so that we can have the Networkers even earlier than September?

Mr. Rifkind: I note the point that my hon. Friend fairly makes. Any reduction in the operating subsidy releases resources for investment. Therefore, the investment programme is positively helped when fewer resources are required for operating purposes.

Mr. John Garrett: The obsolescence of the rolling stock may not have contributed to the accident, but it certainly contributed to the injuries. Those of us who regularly travel on the Kent suburban lines know from reports of earlier accidents that the rolling stock simply splinters on impact. It is grossly unsafe. Is not it true that the Government have done nothing in the past decade to improve safety on those lines, tackle overcrowding or invest in new rolling stock?

Mr. Rifkind: That is simply untrue. I accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that the design of the train might have contributed to the nature of the injuries. Clearly the inquiry will comment on that, and we shall consider with great interest what it says. However, the suggestion that nothing has been done about safety flies in the face of the evidence. We have endorsed £330 million of additional expenditure on safety over the next three years. During the past decade the Government have not refused permission for expenditure on any safety proposal by British Rail. The hon. Gentleman must be a little more objective in such matters.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of and sympathises with the anxieties of travellers on, for example, the north Kent line about the conditions in which they travel. He will be aware that events such as last week's accident heighten the anxieties not only of travellers but of their families, the apprehension with which people travel every day and fears for their safety. When my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Public Transport makes his most welcome visit to Margate in the spring to launch the exhibition of the new rolling stock, will he be in a position to assure my constituents that neither they nor the Government will have to tolerate any delay in the introduction of the new rolling stock to the further regions of the north Kent line?

Mr. Rifkind: I note carefully what my hon. Friend says. Of course, we shall do what we can to ensure that progress in replacing the rolling stock will continue so that the more acceptable situation which my hon. Friend desires will come about as soon as possible.

Dr. John Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware that the rolling stock on the further reaches of the north Kent line previously consisted of four-abreast seating in open compartments with plenty of leg room and that the new rolling stock will be five abreast with space for the knees available only by slotting the knees into a hole in the back of the seat in front? Does he consider that the new configuration is more or less comfortable? Does he believe that such a sardine-like arrangement is safe?

Mr. Rifkind: I would have to try it out before it would be safe to venture an opinion on its relative merits compared with the older design. Clearly the comfort of the travelling public is an important consideration. I hope that, in designing new rolling stock, British Rail will seek to improve the comfort of passengers rather than reduce it. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of British Rail.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take every opportunity to reassure the travelling public that, despite terrible incidents such as the one at Cannon Street and the one two years ago at Clapham Junction in my constituency, it is safe to travel by train and that they should continue to use the service with confidence? Will he ask the inquiry and/or British Rail to look into two aspects regarding standing on trains? First, what would the impact have been in this instance had the train been one of the many trains on Network SouthEast that travel with half the number of coaches which they should have, but with the same number of passengers packed into the reduced number of coaches? Secondly, should it be more of an enforceable offence to open train doors while the train is still in motion? That is a danger to the public on the platform and encourages more people to stand up as the train approaches the platform
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the inspectorate will consider each of my hon. Friend's points, which may be relevant to the safety of the travelling public. He is certainly right to emphasise that the railways continue to be one of the safest means of travel. Earlier I mentioned the number of fatalities on the railways—some 60 people killed during the year compared with more than 5,000 on the roads. Therefore, the railways remain one of the safest means of transport in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John P. Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to recognise the splendid work of our train drivers in difficult and, sometimes, dangerous conditions for little reward? As he seems to have ruled out the possibility of the age of the rolling stock having caused the accident at Cannon Street, will he assure us that the train driver will not be used as a scapegoat for British Rail's inadequacies, as has happened in the past?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to pay tribute to railway drivers as a whole who perform a valuable service for the travelling public. I will not speculate on the cause of the accident. Whether there were mechanical, human or other reasons will be for the inspectorate to draw to the attention of British Rail and the public in its conclusions.

Mr. David Shaw: I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I wrote to him shortly after his appointment to express concern about the delays in implementing the new rolling stock in Kent generally, and that he will do all in his power to speed up the programme, which is wholly unsatisfactory. Many trains in Kent are cancelled because of the inadequacies of the rolling stock. Often there are failings, whether with brakes or other parts, and, as a result, trains must be withdrawn from service. Alternatively, trains are delayed or temporarily taken out of service while repairs are effected on the spot. In these circumstances, the inquiry must reassure our constituents and Kent commuters as soon as possible that the carriages in service are safe. To alleviate all the anxieties expressed today, can we speed up the programme for the replacement of these awful old carriages?

Mr. Rifkind: I am concerned by the great dissatisfaction among my hon. Friends, other hon. Members and their constituents who use these services. It is a source of encouragement that Network SouthEast has embarked on a massive reinvestment programme. Inevitably it takes a little time to see the results of reinvestment. The sums invested in the production of new rolling stock in Kent and elsewhere in the south-east are of an enormous and almost unprecedented order. Therefore, my hon. Friend's constituents can look forward to a more acceptable and satisfactory service in the years to come.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Minister tell us by what factor the longitudinal crushing strength of the modern stock will be increased over the stock involved in the accident? Does he intend to introduce inter-city type energy-absorbing buffers at terminal stations throughout the InterCity region where they are needed instead of the lighter type, which are less effective and which were involved in the accident?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that, even though the accident occurred in London, it sent the message to all commuters throughout England, Scotland and Wales who suffer from overcrowding that there is potential for accidents when trains are massively overcrowded. All commuter services on British Rail are now overcrowded, but the Government have not taken sufficient action soon enough to remedy it. We need more trains—with more seats—that run more frequently to meet demand. We know that some of the figures on investment are economical with the truth, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can present us with investment figures that ensure that coaches start appearing in London, the south-east and the rest of the nation.

Mr. Rifkind: Coaches are appearing. In recent years ever-increasing numbers of new rolling stock have appeared throughout the United Kingdom.
The early part of the hon. Gentleman's question referred to the design of buffers and the rolling stock, which are clearly matters for British Rail to consider. I hope that it will take into account any recommendations made by the inquiry and by previous inquiries when considering the future design of buffers and rolling stock.

Orders of the Day — Severn Bridges Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is intended to authorise the provision of a second tolled road bridge over the Severn estuary between England and Wales, and of the road links needed to connect it to the existing motorway network. It also provides the necessary framework to enable the new bridge to be privately financed through a concession agreement between the Secretary of State and a private concessionaire.
The scheme embodied in the Bill is important, first, because of the long-awaited improvement in communications that the new bridge will provide between England and Wales, and, secondly, because it represents a further significant development of the Government's policy of encouraging the fullest participation by the private sector in providing the country's transport infrastructure. Before I describe in detail the background and content of the Bill, I should like to set the scene in terms of that wider initiative.
The Channel tunnel was the original inspiration and that was followed quickly by the success of a privately funded proposal for the Dartford-Thurrock bridge. I have recently been to see work on that bridge and I commend not only the contractors responsible but the local authorities that were previously involved in providing services for the speed of implementation of the construction work. The bridge is progressing well and will be open to traffic this autumn—the first major highway project in Britain in modern times to have been financed and built by the private sector. The next such scheme is, of course, the second Severn crossing, the Bill for which we are dealing with.
Looking to the future, we are assessing the tenders received for the Birmingham northern relief road, and are considering proposals for new road capacity to meet the longer-term needs of the Birmingham to Manchester corridor. We have also been consulting on six further schemes as possible candidates for private finance to which the industry has responded very encouragingly. In Scotland, bids are being considered for the Skye bridge and there is much interest being shown in the proposal for a privately financed link between the A74 and M8. That is, by the very nature of road construction, a long-term policy.
I am, therefore delighted to report that so much has been achieved in such a short time and that the private sector is responding so positively to the challenge. What is crucially new about this policy lies in the creation of a commercial link between the demands of road users and the provision that will meet that demand. Private firms will be able, subject to appropriate safeguards, to build new roads where they have identified that road users need the new capacity or will gain from shorter journey times. In other words, we are extending the advantages and

disciplines of the market further into transport provision. That is in the long-term interests of road users themselves and of the economy at large.
The House will, of course, know that the New Roads and Street Works Bill, which has been introduced in another place, includes proposals for new procedures for the authorisation of tolled roads without the need for the present hybrid Bill procedures. Those proposals are aimed specifically to facilitate the involvement of private promoters in future road schemes. They would enable privately funded toll roads to be authorised in the same way as conventional trunk roads are now, under the procedures laid down in the Highways Act 1980—after public inquiry and subsequent orders made by the relevant Ministers. I should, therefore, explain to the House why we are asking Parliament separately for the powers set out in the Severn Bridges Bill rather than relying on the new powers that the New Roads and Street Works Bill would offer.
There are, essentially, two reasons. First, the scheme for the second Severn bridge involves—as I shall explain later—the repeal and replacement of the legislation that authorises the tolling of the existing Severn bridge in order to provide a common tolling and operating regime for both bridges. To do this, a separate Bill would have been necessary in any case, but to try to seek powers for the scheme partly through a Bill, and partly through the new order-making procedures, would have made no sense. It would have been merely a recipe for delay and inconsistency.
It follows that the second key reason for seeking all the necessary powers in the Bill is to enable the provision of the new bridge to go ahead as quickly as possible. The only practical alternative, of a limited hybrid Bill followed by the initiation of the order-making process, would almost certainly mean at least a year's delay. As it is, we hope —subject, obviously, to the outcome of the consideration of the Bill by this House and elsewhere—that construction of the new bridge can start next winter, with completion around the end of 1995.
The existing Severn bridge was opened in 1966, 25 years ago, and throughout that period has provided the main road link between south Wales and England, as part of the M4. As such, it has assumed a crucial importance for the economy of the area, especially perhaps in the Principality. As a result, the bridge, which now carries an average of more than 50,000 vehicles a day, has increasingly in recent years become a victim of its own success. Congestion is now becoming a regular event at peak times of the day and at holiday weekends. That is essentially due to sheer lack of capacity at the bridge—which has only two traffic lanes in each direction—rather than to the transient delays incurred by the collection of tolls. The problems have also been complicated by the need to strengthen the bridge to enable it to carry the amount of modern traffic which now uses it, but which was unforeseen at the time it was designed. In addition, high winds can require restrictions on the use of the bridge by high-sided vehicles and the lack of a full hard shoulder exacerbates the difficulties caused by breakdowns and accidents.
Given those developments, the Government decided in 1986 to begin preparations for a second road crossing of the estuary. Following earlier extensive feasibility studies, it was concluded that the optimum choice for such a crossing would be a bridge across the English Stones, some three miles downstream of the present bridge. After


further preparatory work, preliminary bids to provide the new bridge were invited in December 1988. In the light of the successful outcome of the competition to provide the third Dartford-Thurrock crossing, bidders were asked to submit proposals both for a privately funded scheme and for a conventional, publicly financed one: in other words, a scheme involving design, financing, construction and maintenance by the private sector or the more conventional route whereby there is competition between contractors for the design and construction of the bridge.
Eight would-be promoters responded and a shortlist of four was invited in April 1989 to submit detailed tenders, again on both private and public finance bases. After an intensive evaluation of the ensuing proposals, the Government decided that the privately funded bid from a consortium formed by John Laing and GTM-Entrepose offered the best overall value for money of all the proposals submitted. It also offered the way ahead to the earliest practicable date for the completion of the new bridge, which, as I have already said, could be around the end of 1995. The provisional award of the concession to the consortium—Severn River Crossing plc—was announced last April. That was followed up on 29 October 1990 by the formal signature of a concession agreement with the company. The financing of the consortium includes up to £150 million from the European investment bank. Copies of the agreement were placed in the House Library before Christmas. Whether or not that concession agreement comes into effect depends on approval of the Bill, which is now before the House and will shortly be before another place.
In parallel with the competition to provide the new bridge, work continued on the development of the design of the motorway links that are intended to connect it to the existing network. Those roads would be provided under separate, publicly funded contracts to be arranged in the usual way by the Department of Transport for the link roads in Avon to the M4 and M5 and by the Welsh Office for the link road in Gwent to the M4. The two roads in Avon would be to dual two-lane motorway standard—thus providing four lanes each way in total—and the road in Gwent would be to dual three-lane motorway standard, matching the provision on the new bridge.
At each stage of the development of those proposals there has been extensive local consultation on all aspects of the proposed new roads—

Mr. Roger Knapman: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 31. While congratulating my hon. Friend, his Department and its officials on the detailed and largely successful negotiations they have had with the Gloucester Harbour Trustees, the British Waterways Association and others, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that when making the regulations he will bear it in mind that ships of up to 10,000 tonnes dead weight currently use the port of Sharpness in my constituency? If the regulations referred to a figure lower than 10,000 tonnes, that could have an adverse effect on the port.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly not the intention of the Department of Transport or the Welsh Office to frustrate shipping already using the estuary. I am aware that ships of up to 10,000 tonnes dead

weight already use the estuary and port in his constituency. We have no intention of preventing that. I assure him that the Department—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: rose—

Mr. Freeman: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? I did not quite hear what he said.

Mr. Morgan: I just wanted to tell the Minister that if he had forgotten the name of the port in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), which he appeared to have done, it was Sharpness.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had not forgotten the name. The point I was making applies not only to the port in my hon. Friend's constituency but to all ports on the estuary up river from the proposed bridge. I am assuring not only my hon. Friend, but the whole House, that the Bill does not attempt to frustrate any shipping currently using the River Severn. We shall continue to consult not only with the Gloucester Harbour Trustees and the British Waterways Association, but with all other organisations that have a legitimate interest not only in shipping but in wildlife and other amenities on the River Severn. All is not lost. I understand what my hon. Friend said and I hope that he is satisfied with that response.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister referred to the fact that the access roads will be publicly funded. Those roads are an integral part of the scheme. Will he explain the logic in saying that the access roads, which are provided purely to get to and from the bridge, will be provided at public expense, but the profit from the toll on the bridge will go to a private firm? Will he explain why he differentiated between them in that way?

Mr. Freeman: I shall try. The road construction programme, which amounts to about £200 million, will provide the access roads, use of which will not be tolled, but the bridge—

Mr. Alan Williams: The roads will not be going anywhere.

Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman says that the roads are not going anywhere, but that could also apply to traffic using the M4, M5 or the roads in Wales. All the access roads are untolled and there is no provision to toll them. There were two stages in the Department's consideration of how the bridge should be built, financed and operated. The first stage was to carry out a competitive bidding procedure. The John Laing consortium was chosen as it offered the best possible deal for the motorist, because the lowest total volume—calculated by the number of tolls and the number of vehicles using the bridge—would be charged. The consortium required the lowest revenue payback. We then compared the winning tenderer, Laing, with the other option—the Department building the bridge and its being tolled as the first bridge is at present. We calculated that it was in the taxpayers' best interests for the private sector consortium bid to proceed. Although the consortium has to earn profits, which are taxed and the revenues then flow to the Government, the extra cost incurred and the slightly longer period in which the motorist would have to pay tolls in order that the expenses of the successful tenderer could be recovered are outweighed by the advantage to the


taxpayer of placing the risk of cost overrun—not only the cost of the bridge, but operating and maintaining it throughout its life—firmly on the private sector consortium without the risk to the taxpayer. Therefore, we decided that that option provided the best value for money for the taxpayer and the motorist.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister has explained why the contract was allocated on that basis, but he has still not answered my question. We are talking about multi-lane carriageways leading nowhere other than the bridge—they would be cul-de-sacs if they did not go to the bridge. All I am asking is, if the Government say that the bridge should be privately funded, what is the logic of saying that the taxpayer should meet the cost of the feeder roads? It should be all or nothing—an option in between does not make sense.

Mr. Freeman: I see the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. We are not departing from the present position, where the estuarial crossing on the present bridge is tolled, not the feeder roads. The right hon. Gentleman raises the prospect of changing the basis of financing so that tolls are imposed on feeder roads. There is no reason in principle why that option should not apply, but the Government have decided that in this instance it is better for them to fund the road construction part of the project and permit the construction, operational and maintenance costs of the bridge to be recovered from tolls, as at present.
At each stage of the development of these proposals there has been extensive local consultation on all aspects of the proposed new roads, including their effect on the environment. In particular, three series of local exhibitions have been held over the past three years, at several venues on both sides of the estuary, to show the developing scheme and to provide all concerned with a full opportunity to comment at each stage.
As part of this process, a substantial number of alternative routes for the approach roads have been examined and carefully evaluated. The Department's preferred routes have been significantly amended and refined over the period to take account of this work and of the comments that have been received. While recognising that we are never going to be able to satisfy everybody that we have made the best choice of route, I am confident that the final choice—as embodied in the Bill's proposals—represents the best practicable balance between all the conflicting interests at stake.
In the same vein, I should also stress that we fully recognise the environmental sensitivity of this location. The part of the estuary to be crossed by the new bridge is of considerable ecological interest, particularly as a habitat for wildfowl, and it has been designated as part of a site of special scientific interest. There are also proposals to designate the estuary as both a special protection area for birds, under EC legislation, and as a wetland of international importance for birds under the Ramsar convention. The Department has, therefore, taken great pains to ensure that the effects of the new bridge on the ecology of the estuary will be minimised.
We hope that the bridge will make a very positive contribution to the landscape of the area. It will be a most impressive structure both in engineering and aesthetic

terms; on the latter count, the Royal Fine Art Commission has been consulted at a number of stages in the development of the design, and has indicated that it finds the outcome acceptable.
The concession agreement with Severn River Crossing incorporates exacting requirements set by the Department to meet the environmental concerns and sets out the details of comprehensive proposals to meet those requirements in full.
Environmental factors of a different kind are equally important on land. Careful account has been taken in the development of the proposals of another site of special scientific interest on the Welsh bank of the estuary, where the flora and fauna are of particular interest. In terms of the effect on people, the aim, in developing the proposals for the connecting motorways, has been to minimise as far as practicable the impact on the local environment and on local communities. That applies both for the period of construction, for which we are proposing wherever possible to keep the inevitable heavy construction traffic away from local centres of population, and for the completed roads themselves, where the aim has been to minimise their visual impact and the severance to local communities. That will be achieved by careful choice of the line and level of the new roads, by the provision of alternatives for local roads and footpaths affected by the scheme, and by extensive landscaping.
A detailed and comprehensive environmental statement has been prepared in parallel with the Bill to explain all the environmental considerations affecting the scheme and the full extent of the work that has been done to ensure that there is the minimum adverse impact. Copies are in the House Library. Although the EC directive on environmental assessment does not apply to schemes authorised by Parliament, the environmental statement meets the requirements of the directive.
The House will, I hope, find it helpful if I now turn to the Bill and give an explanation of its structure and contents.
The Bill falls into three main parts. Of these, part I would provide the necessary powers for the construction of the new bridge and the connecting roads, and other associated works. Part II deals with the arrangements for the operation and management both of the new bridge, following its completion, and the existing bridge. It includes provision for a new tolling regime for the two bridges. Part III covers a range of miscellaneous items not dealt with by the first two parts.
Part I comprises clauses 1 to 3, which each correspond with a schedule of the same number setting out the associated detailed provisions for each element of the scheme. In essence, these provisions would enable the construction of each element of the works, within specified limits; they would empower the acquisition of the necessary land; and they would permit the alterations to the existing highway network required as a consequence of the main works.
Part II, which deals with the operation of both bridges, contains the key provisions enabling the Secretary of State to enter into a concession agreement with a private promoter for the design, building, financing and operation of the new bridge, and for taking over the financing and operation of the existing one. As I have said, a concession agreement has already been entered into, with the Severn River Crossing company. That agreement is, of course,


conditional upon the successful passage of the Bill, and would not have full effect until and unless the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Much of part II—clauses 5 to 14—is taken up with the provisions needed to implement a new tolling regime for the bridges. That would take effect, initially only at the existing Severn bridge, on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State after Royal Assent. The intention is that it would be the starting date for the concession period, on which the concessionaire would simultaneously take over responsibility for the finances and operation of the existing bridge and be able to begin construction of the new bridge.
In part because of the possibility—we hope very remote —that the concession agreement will not be able to take effect on that date, the Bill is structured to provide that the basic power to levy tolls is granted to the Secretary of State, rather than directly to the concessionaire. That power may then in turn be conferred on and exercised by the concessionaire, under appropriate conditions.
The tolls to be levied under the Bill would be set on the same principles, whether it is the Secretary of State or the concessionaire who is levying them. The tolls, which in the normal run of events would be charged only on traffic heading in the westbound direction—that would reduce both operating costs and the disruption to traffic—would be fixed on the basis of the figures in the table in clause 9, indexed in line with the retail prices index.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister will be aware that this country entered the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system a few months ago, since when certain Ministers have been trying to persuade employers and employees to forget all about the retail prices index when they negotiate wages. Would not it be helpful if the Government also forgot all about the RPI and found some more composite, more ERM and EMS-related index? It will be difficult for employees on the construction project if they are exhorted to forget about the RPI when negotiating wage increases when they can see that it has been included in the basis for the annual increase in tolls. Can anything be done to resolve that problem?

Mr. Freeman: The provision in the Bill protects the public because it sets a cap on the yearly increase in tolls, and the RPI is a fairly general and satisfactory measure of the pressures faced by the general motoring public. Furthermore, its inclusion does not weight the rise in the operating costs of the bridge. Any wage increases conceded by the concessionaire would constitute only a very small proportion of the total RPI for the country, so a satisfactory balance has been struck. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be called in the debate, but I am sure that he will have a subsequent opportunity to suggest an alternative measure of protection. We believe it to be in the interests of the constituents of all hon. Members that there should be a price cap on the rate of increase of tolls—because the crossing is essentially a monopoly.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Why does not the Minister implement on the present Severn crossing the useful and sensible saving that could be derived from collecting tolls only one way? Many hon. Members suggested that at many inquiries and I suggested it again a few months ago in a parliamentary question.

Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is intended for both bridges. Changing the present tolling regime would require the approval of the House, so there is nothing that we can do until Parliament has approved the change. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, when approval is given in six, 12 or 18 months' time—once Royal Assent has been given to this measure—there should be only westward tolling on the present bridge, he has a strong point, which I shall draw to the attention of the concessionaire.

Mr. Alex Cattle: Are we to take it from what the Minister has just said in general reference to clause 9 that the toll will not rise from £1 to £2·35 as set out in the table for 1992 until there is one-way tolling only? Can he assure the House that the toll will not be raised to £2·35 or anything like it while two-way tolling continues?

Mr. Freeman: Yes.
We do not seek to hide the fact that these tolls would represent a significant increase over existing levels. The initial car toll for 1992 would mean a cash increase, depending on the RPI, of the order of 40 to 45 per cent. over present levels for a round trip over the bridge. In real terms, the increase would be about one third over current levels. Larger vehicles would face more substantial increases. But the real point is that the new bridge must be paid for. These tolls represent a very reasonable price to pay for the provision of about £300 million worth of new bridge, which will more than double the capacity of this vital road link, and provide the benefits of shorter journey times and the minimisation of disruption from bad weather.
The Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, which the Bill would repeal, provides for tolling for a period of up to 40 years from opening of the present bridge, in other words, until the year 2006. Under the Bill, which provides for tolling to cover not only the cost of the new bridge but the outstanding deficit of some £120 million on the existing bridge, the concessionaire is permitted a maximum of 30 years' tolling.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister enlighten us on the method of increasing toll charges? We know about the procedure that is followed under the 1965 Act, but now it seems that a great deal of power will be vested in the concessionaire. What is the Minister's role in this matter and will hon. Members be able to vote on it? I understand that local authorities will no longer be able to have a public inquiry about objections to the proposals, and certainly not about proposals with regard to the retail prices index. Can the Minister enlighten us?

Mr. Freeman: I shall try. There is an application for judicial review of the recent increase on the present bridge to a charge of £2 round trip per car. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on that. However, if, after the second bridge is opened, the concessionaire increases the tolls by no more than the retail prices index—and the matter will be monitored by my Department—there is no mechanism for objecting to or controlling such an increase. In due course, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to study some of the more detailed clauses that provide in certain circumstances for the tolls to be increased by more than the RPI. There may be certain reasons for that, and my recollection is that an affirmative order would need to be placed before the


House, voted on and approved by both Houses. If the concessionaire simply sticks to RPI increases, the procedure would be automatic, in the same way as hon. Members' salaries are indexed to movements in civil service salary levels and do not come before the House each year.

Mr. Alan Williams: That was a helpful and clear answer. Will the Minister explain how he arrived at such a proposition and tell us the relevance of the retail prices index to the cost of the bridge? The RPI measures the change in the cost of living of the average family. As has been said, the Government have been lecturing people and saying that the RPI is wrong and that we should look at core inflation, which is substantially lower than RPI rises. However, even core inflation is not relevant to an operation that will consist almost entirely of capital costs, which are interest related. Why on earth has this rabbit of RPI been produced as relevant to the method of increasing the toll?

Mr. Freeman: I look forward to debating that at some length. I shall try to give as rational an explanation as possible, because I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. Perhaps he thinks that we should substitute for the RPI the actual increases in the concessionaire's costs, but that would trap him into losing the benefit of the protection to the travelling public that is enshrined in the Bill. What happens if the concessionaire's costs for maintenance, operation and even interest rates rise at a rate faster than the RPI? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the travelling public should be subjected to increases that may be much greater than the RPI? If he looks at the construction industry index and combines it with movements in interest rates, he will find that that is what has happened in the past.

Mr. Alan Williams: I should welcome that as an alternative, because running costs measured by labour costs and so on, to which the Minister referred, will be minuscule compared with the capital costs. If increases are based on operating costs, rather than the RPI, the people who use the bridge will be infinitely better off. Contrary to what the Minister said earlier, £52·2 million of the £52·5 million from toll payers relates to original design faults at the time of bridge construction. In addition to questions about the RPI, who will meet the costs of any design faults? On the present bridge they cost £50 million.

Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman talks about design faults. I hope that he does not mean faults in terms of safety but faults in terms of cost overrun. The costs of those are met entirely by the concessionaire and not by the taxpayer, as would be the case if the bridge were to be financed in the conventional way. We are getting into the detail of one of the Bill's provisions. The Government believe that the best protection for the travelling public is the use of the RPI index because it can be related most fairly to the likely trend of annual revenue costs falling on the operator who also maintains the bridge. It has nothing to do with the construction costs, because, once the bridge is open, the cost of the bridge is fixed. Any cost overruns are the responsibility of the concessionaire.
The concessionaire's tolling period is perhaps 20 to 25 years and during that time he will naturally be subject to

the pressures of inflation. The RPI is the best way to limit increases in toll charges. The 30-year maximum period of tolling would be reduced if the concessionaire were to collect a certain amount of revenue from tolls before then. On current traffic forecasts, tolling by the concessionaire would not be necessary for more than about 21 or 22 years. If the concession were to start in 1992, it could therefore end by 2014—eight years after the end of the tolling period already permitted under the existing legislation. The Bill allows tolling by the Secretary of State for a further limited period within a maximum of 35 years from the commencement of tolling under these provisions—to meet any outstanding liabilities and, if desired, to set up a fund for the further maintenance of the bridges.
Part II of the Bill also provides the necessary framework for the arrangements under which the concessionaire is to be responsible for carrying out the Secretary of State's functions connected with the maintenance and operation of the bridges. In particular, it provides for the transfer of staff currently employed at the bridge by Avon county council, as the agents of the Department, to the concessionaire. Care has been taken to ensure that the Bill protects the terms and conditions of employment of the transferred staff.
The Bill also provides the necessary arrangements for the eventual termination of the concession agreement, including the transfer of the concessionaire's employees to the Secretary of State. This will help to ensure continuity of safe operation of the bridges, whatever the circumstances of the termination. Part II also provides a regime for regulating traffic on the bridges to prevent obstruction or damage. These provisions, which are somewhat more extensive than those that apply to normal stretches of motorway, are needed because of the special circumstances of the bridges and the constraints on their operation—for instance, the absence of a hard shoulder on the existing bridge. The provisions are closely modelled on those in the 1965 Act, which they would supersede.
Lastly, this part of the Bill provides for copies of the accounts both of the concessionaire and of the Secretary of State to be laid before Parliament. This follows the arrangements provided by the 1965 Act, and, more recently, the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988.
Part III of the Bill contains an assortment of miscellaneous provisions, notably to regulate operations which would interfere with the navigation of the River Severn and to protect the bridge from damage from shipping. It also deals with matters such as rating and planning permission, as well as the usual interpretation and suchlike provisions. I should also mention here the financial provisions, which are covered by clause 37. If the House agrees to give the Bill a Second Reading, we shall afterwards be asking for the House's approval of the associated money and ways and means resolutions.
The examiners have determined that the Bill is hybrid and so, subject again to the outcome of this debate, it would next be referred to a Select Committee, to consider any petitions which may be made against the Bill. The committal motion before the House would allow three further weeks from today, during which petitions might be deposited. Given that the Bill was published on 28 November and that the proposals have been the subject of extensive public consultation for a much longer period, this is a reasonable period to allow. The committal motion


also permits the Select Committee to visit the site and to hold hearings. If it does, the Government will do all that they can to facilitate this process.
I must not presume too much on the outcome of the debate on the Bill. The proposals that it contains represent a further major step forward for our initiative to bring private finance and enterprise into the provision of transport infrastructure. They will enable the earliest practicable provision of the long-awaited second Severn crossing. The removal of this bottleneck in the motorway network will provide a direct boost to communications, and, in turn, to the economy of the area, particularly in south Wales, where the need for this link has long been recognised. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Snape: The Labour party welcomes the proposal for the construction of a new bridge across the river Severn. The first bridge, built almost a quarter of a century ago, even in normal circumstances has insufficient capacity to meet the traffic generated by the economies of the west of England and south Wales. However, we are less than happy with the fact that the new bridge is to be built with private finance which, as a matter of principle, seems to follow the trend towards two-tier road services—one less congested for the motorist willing and able to pay, and another with a poorer infrastructure for those less able to meet the cost or unable to charge their motoring to business use.
The Minister was fairly long on detail but short on figures for the project. We should have liked to hear about the likely costings for the project and the likely revenue from it. As we understand it, the estimates are based on the net present value of the scheme to the promoter, through a complicated and inexact formula involving toll rates, traffic forecasts and the life of the concession. In the view of the Treasury, the lower the net present value to the promoter, the better the value for the rest of us, but that approach could make the likely toll projections unrealistic, particularly during the early years of operation when the burden of private debt will be the greatest.
In any event, the Opposition are unhappy about the principle of toll roads. We consider that the Government's approach to this project is both confused and irrational. Along with such bodies as the Freight Transport Association and the AA, the Labour party considers that the need to pay tolls on a few road links is both anomalous and unfair. The Government's decision to charge at this and other crossings has been applied inconsistently, to say the least. Both the proposed and existing Severn bridges provide a great benefit, but that benefit is to the economy as a whole if the road building justifications of the Department of Transport have any basis in fact. The burden of providing such benefits ought to rest with the nation as a whole rather than with the users, as in this case.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out earlier that the taxpayers provide the access roads to the project, but the revenues arising from the construction of the bridge will go to the builder rather than to the nation. We merely channel the traffic in that direction. The revenue is collected elsewhere. In any event, other similar crossings are toll free. For example, the Britannia bridge, the M5 Avonmouth bridge and the new A55 Conwy crossing in north Wales are, or will be, toll free. Why single out this project? What

guarantees can the Minister offer that the projected tolls are realistic, given that the site chosen for the new crossing is much wider than the original bridge and that the construction will take place in fast-flowing water? What guarantees can the Minister offer that the engineering difficulties inherent in such a project will not increase the risk of cost overrun?
In an article on the subject on 26 February last year, the Financial Times said:
The temptation to choose the lowest cost option could store up other problems if the project ran over budget and required re-financing, as has happened with the privately financed Channel Tunnel.
It also said that, in the opinion of one of the consortia bidding for the contract, the bridge will need about 40 piers sunk into the river bed, compared with just two piers for the existing bridge. Will the Minister say something about the likely construction costs?
As I have said, the Labour party feels that the history of tolls on projects such as this has been fairly unhappy. I choose just two examples at this stage, although we shall return to the point later in our deliberations on the Bill. I draw the Minister's attention to the case of the Mersey tunnels where severe financial difficulties have been created for the transport authority concerned, despite increased revenue due to higher traffic flows and toll increases. In the Mersey travel policy plan for 1991, paragraphs 4.1.12 and 4.1.13 on page 17, the transport authority says:
As at 31 March 1990 capital debt was some £116 million costing some £15 million to service. Of this a net deficit of £8 million was borne in 1989–90 by the poll tax payers, money that could have been allocated to areas such as education and housing or indeed poll tax reductions if the Government was prepared to write-off debt incurred from the construction of the Tunnels many years ago.
There is a similar story on the Humber bridge. A recent district auditor's report confirmed that the total toll levy may never be able to meet the full cost of operation and maintenance, interest charges and capital repayments. The report concluded that the situation was
a matter of grave concern.
These two projects, toll operated as they are, illustrate the unhappy history of projects financed in this way. We hope that, during the later stages of the Bill, we shall be able to persuade the Government that other methods of finance are preferable.
To assist in our deliberations on the Bill, particularly as regards the principle of tolled crossings, we have the second report of the Select Committee on Transport 1985–86, House of Commons 250, parts 1–3. At the time of the inquiry, just 25 miles out of a total of 9,390 miles of motorway and private roads were subject to private tolls. The Committee considered not only that many of the crossing authorities were finding it difficult to manage the debt but that tolls were having an adverse effect on the local economy. The House will be aware that, at that time, the Select Committee advocated the abolition of toll charges on estuarial crossings. Among its reasons for doing that, the Select Committee pointed out that tolls can inhibit the development of commercial activity around such crossings. Another significant argument against the principle involved was the high cost of collection, which varied between 4·5 per cent. of income at Dartford and 25 per cent. of income at the Tay bridge. What estimates does the Minister have of collection costs on this project?
The Select Committee concluded its report by saying:
We firmly believe that tolls should not be imposed on any major estuarial crossing which forms part of the motorway or


trunk system. We recommend that the Government recognise the inappropriateness of tolling trunk road and motorway crossings and that the Department of Transport, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office work towards the removal of existing tolls.
We consider that the Select Committee was right then and that those sentiments are right now.
Will the Minister confirm that the design of the new bridge is French? Have the Government considered the implications for British contractors if that is so? It will not help this country to compete in the international bridge-building market if a foreign design has been chosen. Is this yet another example of the Government's determination to put supposed profit before patriotism?
Can the Minister confirm that, although the existing bridge over the Severn has a cycle and pedestrian way, the new bridge has no such facility, despite repeated requests from Avon county council? Has the Minister considered the provision of such a facility, or have the proposals been dropped so as to keep construction costs to a minimum and to accentuate the attractiveness of the project to the private sector?
The Treasury receives about £15 billion per year from Britain's road users. But with such a massive and ever-increasing sum, the Government should surely be able to fund essential projects such as this without hawking them around the private sector and without the built-in delay, expense and inconvenience that toll projects invariably generate. We believe that, the Department of Transport having proved the need, the need ought to will the means.

Mr. John Cope: The Bill is important for people in many parts of the country, and especially for those in my constituency. The existing Severn bridge starts, or finishes, depending on which way one drives across it, in my constituency. The proposed bridge will also start in my constituency. It will be very near to the twin villages of Pilning and Severn Beach. The new approach roads will affect my constituents considerably. They will be affected permanently when those roads are completed and, while they are being constructed, they will be affected considerably by construction traffic and other works nearby. The site that has been chosen makes it inevitable that the approach roads will go near and partially through the two villages that I have mentioned.
The basic question in this debate is whether the bridge is needed. If it is needed, is it to be built at the right place? As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear in his opening remarks, that has been the subject of exhaustive study and report over many years. I became convinced some time ago that a new crossing is necessary and that a bridge at English Stones is essentially the right solution. I was confirmed in that by chance a few months ago when I flew over that part of the Severn estuary when the tide was out. The reason for building the bridge in that position then became entirely clear. The engineer's decision stood out as the rock stood out on the river bed. The base of the bridge is already there.
The decisions that have been made on the bridge and on its siting lead to decisions on approach roads. It must be right to connect the new bridge both to the M4 and the M5. Wherever the bridge is sited, however, it will affect

many people. There have been long discussions between individuals, groups and the various councils on my side of the Severn and, I believe, on the other side over the past few years.
Several things are clear. First, there is no route that does not affect a lot of people. Secondly, there are different layers of problem. Whichever route is chosen, some property will have to be taken in its entirety and used during the construction of the bridge to be seriously devalued by having a new motorway nearby. Often the motorway will be at quite a high level—for example, where it links with the bridge. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the compensation for the many who will be involved in payments is in the course of being improved by the Planning and Compensation Bill, which is being considered in another place. For example, that measure will double the amount of home loss payments for property that is taken. Compensation payments will be improved in other ways.
Whatever the level of compensation, there will be some who will be badly affected and whose needs will have to be taken into account. I think that the Department of Transport has done its best to assess all factors and to choose the best route that it can. I am grateful to officials of the Department for the time that they have spent with me and with my constituents and others in discussing various routes and the effects that they will have on individuals, as well as the alternative proposals that have been put forward. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, they have held important exhibitions to ensure that everyone who will be affected has the opportunity clearly to see the proposed routes and to discuss with officials the effects that they will have. Some alterations have been made to the routes during the discussions. There have been some important alterations as well to the various noise-mitigating actions that will be taken during construction.
Now we have come to the crunch. The Department of Transport has settled on the route that it thinks is the best. The choice was whether to try to obtain authority for both the bridge and the roads by means of a Bill such as the one before us or to try to secure authority for the roads at least by following the conventional public inquiry route. I think that the right choice has been made. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there must be a Bill for the bridge, and it is best to have both the roads and the bridge gain authority in the same way and at the same time. The siting of the one will affect intimately the other.
The result for those whose property will be affected —I put this in slightly crude terms—is that they will be able to give evidence to a committee of Members who will report to the House as a whole, rather than give evidence to an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State and who would report to him. I hope that those who give evidence will find that a committee of Members will be just as responsive as any inspector to their submissions. I hope that in some ways they will be even more understanding of their concerns.
My hon. Friend the Minister was right to say that it is necessary for those who wish to give evidence to ensure that they make application in the form of a petition during the next three weeks, if the motion to commit to a Select Committee is carried, as one hopes and expects it will be, at the end of the debate.
To choose such a Bill for introducing the proposals means that the method itself is on trial. It puts great


responsibility on the members of the Select Committee. Those Members will have to make decisions that will affect directly the future of some individuals. Unlike councillors, we Members do not usually have the specific responsibility that will be placed on our colleagues who are nominated to be members of the Select Committee. Our colleagues who are chosen to serve in that way must consider carefully the costs and the benefits of the bridge—that will involve its entire construction—and the disbenefits to individuals. The benefits to motorists and commerce and industry can be estimated in various ways. The disbenefits to individuals can be measured by the loss of property values, for example. Indeed, that will have to be measured in assessing the compensation that is payable at various stages during the progress of the works.
There is some controversy about the methods of measuring the costs and the benefit of bridges and comparing the two. That is reflected in today's edition of The Times. I hope that our colleagues who are nominated to be members of the Select Committee will weigh these matters carefully. They have the opportunity to start with a clean sheet and to probe. They will be able to question the calculations that lie behind the design. I am sure that they should take the opportunity to hear the views of those who are affected and are on or near the site where the bridge is to be.
I hope that the Committee will come to the west and to Wales, so that its members can examine the proposals in the areas that will be affected and hear the evidence of those who will be affected by the roads. With a great project of this sort it is inevitable that some people's individual interests will be affected. That is the reason for the private Bill and hybrid Bill procedure that we follow. It is for those who are members of the Select Committee to ensure that things are done properly. That is important in the interests of those concerned and for the reputation of the House when we come to make decisions of this sort.
Apart from routing, important considerations are landscaping, noise abatement and the diverting of existing roads when there is a need for a different route to be adopted to allow them to continue to be used. Modern methods of noise abatement should be used wherever possible to ensure that the inconvenience caused by new motorways to people living in the area is minimised.
My final points relate to the nature of the Severn itself. Much of the land that is several miles from the river bank is below sea level—at least at high tide—and that makes drainage a matter of the first importance. The building of major roads in that area could seriously affect the drainage there, which is sometimes extremely tricky. The drains in the Severn valley carry a great deal of water and the effect of making changes to them are not always understood at the time. Alterations made at one location can cause flooding some miles away, creating great difficulties for the residents concerned. A proper study should be undertaken to ensure that proper drainage is provided.
The Severn is a powerful river, having strong currents. It has the second highest tidal range—between high and low tide—of any river in the world. A difference of plus or minus 10 m during each tide is not abnormal, and with some tides the difference is even greater. The Severn is also an important waterway, and those two facts together mean that the design of the bridge and of the piers—the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) pointed out that the bridge is to have many piers—will affect the

currents and the way in which many tonnes of silt will be deposited along the river, above and below the bridge, which will also affect many people living in the locality.
The effects will be difficult to calculate in advance, even by modelling, but the maximum effort should be made to ensure that they are assessed and taken into account in the construction of the bridge. Such calculations have not always been made accurately in respect of past constructions on the Severn, giving rise to flooding and to other consequences that we want to avoid this time. The Committee will need to be alert to all those considerations if it is fully to appreciate the problems arising from the construction of the new bridge and their effect on the local people.
However, the House should acknowledge today that the new bridge is necessary and that the right choice of location has been made. Nevertheless, the new crossing will create many difficulties for those living in the parishes concerned and the Committee must examine whether the damage can be mitigated further. It is in the confidence that the, as yet unnamed, members of the Committee will do their best to ensure that is done that I support the Bill.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Today marks an important landmark, for the Bill is the culmination of many years of campaigning. I pay tribute to Gwent county council and to others in south Wales for the wonderful campaign that they waged, to my hon. Friends, and to late colleagues—such as Mr. Brynmor John and Mr. loan Evans, who played such a valuable part in bringing the project to the fore. The South Wales Argus, South Wales Echo and Western Mail have all been very supportive.
The issue of the new Severn crossing has certainly occupied much of my own time in recent years. We have come a long way since November 1983, when a group of Welsh Labour Members of Parliament lobbied the then Secretary of State for Transport for a second crossing, after the state of the existing bridge had been exposed. The Secretary of State in question was that figure of enlightenment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who told us in his usual inimitable way that he did not intend to dig another hole in the ground.
Although today is a landmark, our achievement is muted because of the deplorable way in which the matter has been handled by the Government. By handing over to a foreign-backed consortium the main route of access into and out of Wales, the Government have abdicated their responsibilities in respect of a cornerstone of the Welsh infrastructure. Their decision is shameful and an insult to Wales.
The Government have also been indifferent on the major issue of toll charges. It is intrinsic to the no-risk concessionary agreement that there will be ever-escalating increases in toll charges in the years ahead. That agreement will allow increased tolls to be levied on the existing bridge from 1992 onwards—three years before the second crossing is scheduled to be completed. That is wholly unacceptable. The proposed toll regime should not apply until the new facility is available.
At the last tolls inquiry, it was said that the proposed increases would enable debts on the existing bridge to be paid off by 2006, which is in line with the 40-year toll


period enshrined in the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965. The Bill, however, provides for an enhanced level of tolls until 2025—a 60-year period.
Incidentally, I recall that Aneurin Bevan once posed the question, "Why not trust the Tories?" On the issue of toll charges alone, it is obvious that the Tories cannot be trusted. It is no wonder that they were reluctant to publish the concessionary agreement. We ask that the notional debt of approximately £122 million on the existing bridge be wiped out before the commencement of the new concession. In that way, tolls could be kept at a reasonable level.
The Bill makes no provision for local authorities and other interested parties to call a public inquiry. I raised that point when the Minister made his opening remarks. The denial of that right is a negation of democracy, and that omission should be rectified at the earliest opportunity.
I also think of those constituents of mine who, when they were made redundant some years ago, were advised by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to get on their bikes. They did, and found work on the other side of the Bristol channel. Now they are heavily penalised by heavy toll charges for doing so. Such charges are a restraint on trade and commerce, and constantly add to the cost of goods and services.
There is no consistency in Government policy. The Government claim that charges should be levied at crossings which provide exceptional benefits. In his opening remarks from the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked whether the M5 Avonmouth bridge did not provide exceptional benefit, likewise the Britannia bridge in north Wales and the Scottish crossings of the A9 at Moray, Dornoch and Cromarty Firths, and the A82 Ballachulish bridge. The east London river crossing will also be toll free, as will the A55 Conwy crossing in north Wales—I believe that that may be related to the fact that Conwy is becoming more of a marginal seat for the Conservative party.
As the Freight Transport Association points out, to perpetuate tolls on the existing and new Severn bridges will compound the inconsistency and irrationality of Government policy.
Why does the Confederation of British Industry for Wales not realise the significance of this issue? We have not heard a dicky bird from that body, whose loyalty to the Government seems to take precedence over the interests of its members, let alone the general public. Indeed, the CBI must blush when taking contributions from its members in view of the role that it has played in the tolls issue. I am sorry that the leadership of my party did not grasp the nettle in the run-up to the last general election. A report by the Select Committee on Transport clearly set out how it would be done. Apart from minor local authority involvement, the debts from estuarial crossings are essentially notional figures on the Consolidated Fund, with no bank charges involved. The amounts involved are a flea bite compared with the outstanding debts that the Government have wiped out to pursue their privatisation policy.
Road transport is not a poor relation. It makes a massive contribution to the Exchequer—more than £18

billion annually, of which less than a quarter is spent on roads and their maintenance. Despite that, the Government are prepared to squeeze the last penny from this vital sector of the economy. I am worried that in the process they are damaging Wales, which has struggled for new jobs and a little prosperity after so many economic setbacks.
The second Severn crossing is part of a strategic road network. As the poet John Donne said,
No man is an Island".
That is true in relation to the second Severn crossing, which is one section of a jigsaw made up of interlocking parts. In connection with that, I must express my concern about the delays in a number of important Welsh road improvement schemes. In the context of the second Severn crossing, I am especially worried about the delay over the Brynglas Crindau tunnel scheme on the M4 as it is a major bottleneck, which needs to be tackled. Otherwise, Newport will be choked with traffic congestion. There have been suggestions that that scheme would be delayed, but the Welsh Office seems to have had second thoughts after protests. Mr. Christopher Tapp, chief executive of Newport borough council, points out in a letter to me dated 11 January that the Welsh Office is now planning a start in 1992, and not in 1991, but that would still result in one year's delay. The Minister of State at the Welsh Office seems to have confirmed that in a letter to me today.
In relation to the problems associated with the construction of the second Severn crossing, I think of the people at the sharp end—my constituents in Caldicot, Magor, Rogiet and Undy. I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of the concept of a second Severn crossing, but I have never wished to underestimate the environmental and other difficulties involved. I thank the Government for taking heed of my advice, and for establishing consultative machinery. A committee has been formed, consisting of representatives of local interests on the Welsh side—community councils, Monmouth borough council, Gwent county council—together with Welsh Office representatives. Grievances can be aired and the general public can be kept informed of developments before they are under way.
One major grievance was voiced by the people of Magor and Undy, who formed an action committee with a view to stopping heavy lorries from passing through their villages on the way to the Severn crossing site. Meetings were held and they drew up a large petition, which I handed in at the Welsh Office in Cardiff, accompanied by members of the action committee and local authority representatives. I am pleased to say that the Welsh Office understood the difficulties and the building of an access road for construction traffic was brought forward by a year, with the result that lorries will leave the M4 to the east of junction 23 at Magor.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying that compliment to the Welsh Office. However, a few moments ago he referred to the Brynglas tunnels and the Malpas relief road and he implied that work on that scheme would not start until 1992. I actually said that we shall go out to tender in the spring of this year, which would imply a start of work in this calendar year.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad of that confirmation of good news from the Minister as there was great concern in


Newport and the surrounding areas about that scheme. However, the chief executive in Newport is certainly of the impression that it would mean a 1992 start.
I have mentioned difficulties which have been alleviated for the people of Magor and Undy. Now Caldicot, led by the mayor, Mrs. Pauline Watts, is requesting that the access road which I referred to earlier be extended to bypass the Pill area of Caldicot. From my local knowledge, I know that that new proposal has a good deal of logic, and I ask the Welsh Office to consider it carefully.
Last Saturday morning I met a delegation from Rogiet community council, which suggested that the direction in which tolls will be collected on the new crossing should be changed from westbound to eastbound. The suggestion was made because of continuing concern in the village about the levels of noise and air pollution emanating from westbound vehicles leaving the toll plaza and accelerating away on a rising 1 in 62 incline. Given the prevailing south-west wind, the village of Rogiet would be in the direct line of exhaust and other noxious fumes. That strikes me as an entirely legitimate point.
The Automobile Association says:
The new bridge will have a dual three-lane standard. However, the approach road serving the new bridge on the English side of the River Severn is to be constructed as a dual two-lane carriageway, with provision for a third lane in the future 'when the need arises'. This represents … a planned bottleneck.
At least the AA knows something about roads; I hope that its views will be taken into consideration.
The Government should seriously consider the important environmental and other problems associated with the construction of the bridge. Although I welcome the concept of a second Severn crossing, I cannot give the Bill three cheers. First, the Government have handed over an important section of our infrastructure to a foreign-backed consortium, which in turn seems to have milked a no-risk agreement out of the Government. Secondly, no concession has been made on toll charges; on the contrary, they will be increased markedly and paid over a longer period. The debt on the existing bridge should have been wiped out, and no further toll increase should be imposed on that bridge until the new one is completed.
I hope that the Government will reconsider, even at this late stage. Meanwhile, the most that I can give the Bill is one cheer—it deserves no more.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Almost every time one approaches the Severn bridge one appreciates the need for a second crossing on that great and turbulent river. Indeed, whenever one crosses the bridge itself, one somehow feels—as one looks at the repairs and the lane closures, and considers the history of the bridge—that one is wearing the torn and tattered trousers of Wales. Wales —with an economy which is always ready to thrive, and is extremely attractive to industry not only in England but in the rest of the world—deserves better than it has received from a congested, poorly designed and poorly repaired bridge in recent decades.
I welcome the decision to build a second Severn crossing. I urge the Department, however, to ensure that the new crossing is adequate—not only adequate for 1995–96, when it is likely to open, but of suitable size, quality and design for the 21st century. The Bill makes positive statements about the state of affairs at the crossing

30 and 40 years from now: the concession is for 30 years and provision is made for the collection of tolls by the Secretary of State for a further five years thereafter. We must be sure—and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us in due course—that the design that has been sought and provided will meet the needs of the year 2025 as they are envisaged now. We need to know that we shall not be faced in 15 or 20 years' time with the inadequacies and complaints that the existing bridge has brought repeatedly to the House of Commons.
May I ask the Minister to tell us whether the decision to provide a second crossing has been viewed as part of an overall transport and freight strategy or as merely a part of the patchwork of roads to be designed to meet the current obvious shortfall? Are we to expect the new bridge merely to bring more and more freight on to the roads, at the expense of rail transport? Has the Department considered, for example, the desirability of improving rail links at the same time? Has it considered how rail transport can be enhanced—particularly the carriage of freight—to keep cars off the roads of south Wales, rather than their being driven in increasing numbers on to those roads?
I am sure that the Minister knows that, once we move north of the M4 in south Wales and up towards mid-Wales, the roads quickly run out and we soon find ourselves on what are—at least by comparison with the M4—not much more than country lanes. I am pleased to see that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is present. Will part of the overall strategy be the introduction, at long last, of roads that improve the Welsh transport infrastructure, especially through the provision of a proper link from north and mid-Wales to south Wales? Now that a new Severn crossing is being provided and the A55 is nearing completion as a major expressway, surely it is logical to provide such a link between north and mid-Wales to, in particular, the south-east of England. That will enable Wales to thrive rather more easily than it can now, given the present constraints.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that a bypass is shortly to be opened on the A470 at Llanidloes in his constituency. That is part of the 100 million investment in the A470 that we have made since 1979; some £70 million is still to be invested in the north-south route.

Mr. Carlile: I am all too well aware of the imminent opening of that bypass, which is currently under construction—not least because of the unhappiness of a number of my constituents about the way in which the construction contract has been carried out, which has often been to the considerable detriment of local residents. The bypass is very welcome; I am sure that the Minister of State will agree, however, that it is quite a long way from the M4, particularly on the existing Welsh roads.
I suggest to the Minister of State that, on current plans, the improvements that he now envisages will do well to knock more than five or 10 minutes off the journey time from Llanidloes to, say, Cardiff or Newport and that much more needs to be done.
Perhaps, tempted by the Minister of State, we are straying a little wide of the subject of the debate. Let me put to the Minister a further point, which has already been made this evening: although I accept the clear terms in which his assurance was given, we must be certain that the construction of the bridge will not inhibit either existing


shipping—on which he gave an assurance—or the possibility of the development of shipping facilities at some of the ports on the river. Large ships use the river. As we are considering road development for the next 30 years, we should also consider shipping development over the next 30 years. We should not view the development of merchant shipping with a pessimistic eye, as we tend to at present.

Mr. Freeman: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in terms of the prospective increase in trade and size of ships, the Department of Transport will certainly take into account the representations made by the appropriate trade, conservation and waterways protection bodies so that the design and operation of the bridge and the location of its piers will facilitate both existing trade and, where sensible, increases in the size of ships.

Mr. Carlile: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, not least for the usual clarity of his intervention. To illustrate what I have in mind, there is considerable potential for the development of trade between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the Community, following the changes that are to take place in 1992. Much of that trade may wish to use Severn river ports as staging posts.
Conditional agreement has been reached about the concession. Considerable concern has been expressed in Wales about the belief that French interests are the most likely to benefit from the contract and the tolls that will be collected during the next 30 years. As a keen pro-European, I do not wish to be insular, but it would help if we could be reassured that every attempt has been made to ensure that domestic interests will benefit from the concession.
A more worrying point is that the Bill refers to the concession being granted for a period of 30 years. If we look at the history of public liability companies during the last 30 years, we see that that is an extremely long time in the life of any company. Large companies that are household names at one moment cease to exist soon thereafter. What steps is the Department of Transport taking to try to ensure—it may be impossible to secure an absolute assurance—that 12 or 15 years' hence we do not find that the Department has been left with an extremely expensive white elephant on its hands because of the financial failure of the concessionaires or because of successive takeovers of the concessionaires? Can we be reassured that those who become the majority shareholders will be unable in a few years' time to take advantage of company law provisions in order to avoid their obligations under the concession?
The Government seem to be convinced that the right approach is to construct a toll bridge, and the collection of tolls between south Wales and England is correct in principle. Much has already been said about that, but it seems to me that that approach places the Welsh economy at a disadvantage compared, say, with Avon's economy. Can the Government assure us that toll levels will remain fair? The table set out in the Bill is helpful, but it will be possible for the concessionaires to come to the House to seek an increase in tolls above the retail prices index. The concessionaires may be able to produce figures that show that they have bought a pup and that they are not making the profits that they expected to make out of the

concession. Will the Government at least assure us that they will hold the concessionaires to the principles that underlie the concession and that it will be bad luck for the concessionaires if they find in a few years' time that during the tendering procedure they miscalculated? It is important that that principle should be established. I am grateful that the Minister for Public Transport is nodding in assent.
A powerful plea has just been made on behalf of those villages that will be affected during the concession period. It may be that their position could best be protected if construction of the slip roads took place at the earliest possible stage so that they could be used for the carriage of goods and materials for the construction of the bridge. I hope that the Department will do all that it can to reduce disturbance to a minimum.
The bridge is expected to be completed by the end of 1995. That date may be of great importance to companies that are considering establishing important new factories or office premises in south Wales. In order to ensure the maximum possible confidence for companies that are thinking about coming to south Wales, will the Government ensure that time is of the essence of the contract for that part of the concession that involves the construction of the bridge? The effect of making time of the essence of the contract would ensure that the highest possible incentive was given to the concessionaires to complete the contract on time, particularly if heavy penalties were imposed if the bridge was not completed on time.
I welcome the decision to construct a second river crossing. Despite the misgivings I have expressed, I hope that it will have a fair wind.

Mr. Alan Williams: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), I came here to give three cheers for the new bridge. However, having listened to the Minister's speech—I apologise to my hon. Friend, since I do not mean this in any personal sense—I do not believe that we should give a single cheer for it. The Bill is a rip off by those who will build the bridge and by the Government.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), who is sitting in the Whips' position, that my late decision to take part in the debate is in no way to be taken as a wish by me to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill. I am sure that those hon. Members who are selected to serve on the Committee will be delighted by my absence, since my presence could only prolong its deliberations.
The right hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East highlighted the importance of consulting those who will be immediately affected once the construction of the bridge is in hand. That is correct. However, in his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to a point that brought back to mind a controversy that arose at the time of the construction of the first Severn bridge. He referred to the rocks upon which the piers and piles are to be laid. I well recollect our late friend, Iori Thomas, the Member of Parliament for Rhondda, waxing eloquently and angrily about the fact that the Beaufort estate derives great benefit from the piers and the piles. Apparently, the Beaufort estate owns the bed of the river Severn. The more the piers


and piles, the more the benefit to the Beaufort estate. A rent has to be paid to the Beaufort estate for every pier and pile that is laid on the bed of the river. I should be intrigued, although not particularly worried, to discover whether that is still so. If it is, the more piers there are, the merrier the Beauforts will be.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an important point about the shadow effect of the bridge. I was lecturing as an economist when the bridge was first announced and I remember warning on Welsh radio and television that its greatest benefit would be to the south-east of Wales and that unless a proper transport system and incentives were provided to encourage industry to go beyond the more immediate locations it could present problems for west and mid-Wales. Although the second bridge will have a lesser effect, it will have a similar effect and will increase relatively the attractiveness of the coastal strip to the south-east of Wales.
I hope that the Department of Transport has undertaken full appraisal of all the designs. By failing to observe its normal procedures and by changing the design of the present bridge at the last moment, it caused remedial costs of £52·2 million, all of which are related to design fault. The recent increase in tolls to £1 would not have been necessary had it not been for those design faults, and that increase will raise less money than the design faults cost. The monitoring of the design is crucial.
I said that the Bill is a rip off. I had no preconceived ideas because I had not read the Bill until about half an hour before entering the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) took up the Minister's point about approach roads, which will be paid for from public funds. This will not be a minor cost to the public. We are told that the bridge will cost £300 million, but, unless I misheard, the approach roads, which we will pay for, will cost £200 million. The Minister nods. Taxpayers are providing a £200 million subsidy to those who will construct the bridge. The roads that we are building have no purpose other than to lead to the bridge. The constructors are therefore getting a massive capital subsidy from the outset.

Mr. Freeman: Since my opening speech, support for the Bill seems to have decreased rather than increased. I obviously failed to explain that there was a competition whereby each proposed contractor expressed, in terms of revenue at 1989 prices, the minimum revenue that it would accept, bearing in mind all the risks of construction of the bridge and its maintenance, operation and interest costs. We chose Laing because £976 million, as shown in the concession agreement, was the best possible estimate of revenue at 1989 prices. The risk lies entirely with that consortium. The higher the cost, the smaller the profit. The increase in tolls will be set by indexing them with a maximum increase in the RPI each year. The tolls earned by the consortium will be taken back to 1989 prices and added up each year. Once the figure of £976 million is reached, the toll ends and the bridge reverts to the Secretary of State. That is not a rip off. We compared the financial consequences of the consortium, with £976 million at 1989 prices as the maximum revenue to be earned, with designing and building a conventional bridge in the public sector and concluded, in a complicated calculation, that the award of the tender to Laing presented the best value for money for the taxpayer.

Mr. Williams: I shall consider the Minister's remarks, which were detailed. However, it was useful and helpful information. It might have been helpful if we had had an opportunity to absorb it earlier. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) interrupts. We are trying to have a positive and sensible discussion.
The Bill is a rip off of the taxpayer and the motorist. For example, the Government will make windfall profits from the bridge. As the Minister said, the yield from tolls is already £15 million higher than necessary because of an error by the Department in the first instance, but those tolls will be raised higher than the Government thought necessary simply to match the toll on the new bridge. That represents a windfall. The way in which the Minister anticipates dealing with the increases in toll charges is unjustifiable and has no basis in logic. Tolls will increase according to the cost of living index, without any challenge whatsoever; only if they increase above that rate will there be a challenge.
The bridge will cost £300 million. The highest cost will be servicing not the structure but the capital. What relationship has the RPI to that, because that cost is pre-determined? The rate of interest is arranged and is unaffected by changes in cost. If anything, it is possible that the constructors will benefit from a reduction in interest rates. If they organise their finances correctly, their major costs of servicing capital can decrease while charges to the public increase according to the retail prices index. That measures the changes in the costs of the average household, which are unrelated to the cost of operating a bridge.
Not only is there a windfall profit to the Government from the toll arrangements and increases but a massive further windfall to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East alluded. Under the present arrangements, the Government believed that the motorist's debt to the Government would be expunged by 2006, but under the Bill the Minister has the power to continue tolls, at the RPI increased rate, for 35 years. In other words, tolls on the present bridge will continue not until 2025 but until 2030. Is that a correct assessment? The Minister seems uncertain, so I shall err on his side and take the lower figure. Assuming that the date is 2025, inflated tolls will continue for 19 years after the date when the public will have paid its debt to the Department of Transport. We shall pay a £200 million capital subsidy to those who build the bridge and an inflated toll, linked to the RPI, to those who operate it. The Government will sit back, smiling all over their face, drawing in the benefits of not only inflated tolls until 2006 but of income that they did not expect to have, at an inflated rate, from then on. In other words, it will produce a surplus of about £100 million beyond the date until which motorists expect to pay tolls on the existing Severn bridge.

Sir Wyn Roberts: But does not the right hon. Gentleman forget one crucial fact: we shall have an additional bridge?

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the Minister. With respect, he usually talks about market forces, but there is no question of market forces here. We shall have to pay higher prices on the bridge for which we have already paid. There is no question of market prices for bridge 1 and bridge 2. The idea that we are getting a bargain is nonsense. Does the Minister seriously suggest that a £200


million subsidy, higher tolls than necessary on the new bridge and a windfall of tolls to the Government for almost 20 years beyond the date after which the charges for the present Bill have been met, is anything but a rip off? Can he suggest that that is a good deal for the public? If he can, I suggest that later he will regret his words.

Mr. Ron Davies: My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a devastating criticism of the funding of the bridge. We all look forward to that argument being explored in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) also made criticisms. It is fair to say that the only thing that unites us is support for the principle of a second crossing. There can be no doubt about the benefits of a second crossing. We welcome a crossing principally because communications both into and out of Wales are unacceptable and conditions on the existing bridge are intolerable for both the people who use it and the economic development in Wales. Economic development particularly worries me and it will be the thrust of my arguments this evening.
I am worried about the consequence for regional development of Wales not only under existing circumstances but in those which will prevail after 1 January 1993 when we have to compete in the European single market and possibly face the prospect of a single currency. Unless we have good communications and a proper regional policy, we in Wales will not stand a chance of competing with the dynamic areas of the Low Countries, northern France and Germany.
There is no doubt that there is a need for the crossing. I use in evidence the undoubted benefits that have accrued from the M4. Ever since the Severn bridge was opened and the development along the M4 corridor took place we have seen a measure of industrial development and economic regeneration in south Wales which has gone some way to offsetting the losses that we incurred as a result of the contraction of the coal and steel industries. The most recent developments were the Ford development at Bridgend and the Bosch development in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). Last Friday there was an exciting announcement by Imperial college that it would set up a new science and research park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). All those exciting developments have come to Wales as a result of improved communications via the M4.
If we are to ensure that the whole region benefits, we must pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East when he referred to a jigsaw and the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West about the need to ensure that there is a proper network of communications. If we do not respond to that need, there will be a corridor of economic activity and prosperity along the M4 but no social, community and economic development in the valleys that do not have good access to the M4. The prospects for such areas will be grim.
Shortly before Christmas my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and I were bitterly upset by

the announcement by the Welsh Office of the road programme for the coming year. The road programme is important because it will provide the link which will ensure that we benefit from the new Severn crossing. My constituency is particularly badly served by roads. We have one principal road—the A469. As the Minister will be aware, it is a narrow, winding road which is invariably subject to unacceptable delays. It brings environmental disadvantages to the people who live along it. It chokes any prospect of economic development in the valley.
To tackle the problems that I have outlined, Mid Glamorgan county council has an ambitious programme of road improvements. It wants to open up the valley and improve the communications. It wants to link the valleys to the M4 and the Severn crossing so that we can benefit from economic growth. The first stage of the programme was the Llanbradach bypass, which was the subject of a submission to the Welsh Office last year. As part of its transport grant submission, the council asked for approval of expenditure of £10·6 million for that one small bypass. The Welsh Office offered approval of only £1·5 million. The importance of the bypass has two aspects. First, unless it is built, the environment in Llanbradach and Ystrad Mynach in the centre of the valley will continue to make people's existence miserable. Secondly, without the bypass, any future developments further up the valley will be stymied. There is no point in building a bypass in the lower part of the valley if there is a bottleneck in the middle, with the traffic whipping round Llanbradach and Ystrad Manach and being caught in Bargoed or wherever.
Exactly the same problem has afflicted the neighbouring constituencies. Funding for the Pontypridd bypass is in jeopardy, as is the link to the A470. The Minister rapidly rose to justify the A470 development, but the link included Merthyr which was also subject to a cash cut-off by the Welsh Office. Again, in my constituency the Bargoed bypass application has failed. All such developments are singularly important to the valley constituencies because they link us to the M4 corridor of prosperity. Mid Glamorgan county council recognised that, because in its preface to the transport policy and programmes submission to the Welsh Office it said:
The major schemes planned by the County Council besides contributing to Structure Plan policies are seen as complementary to the Secretary of State's Valleys Programme in that they will encourage new economic activity to locate within the heart of the valleys by virtue of the better communications so created. In addition they will free the congested urban commercial areas of problems associated with congestion and poor environment and will enable the process of urban renewal to gather momentum by breathing life back into some of the County's town centres and by encouraging private investment.
We all agree with that. The Llanbradach bypass scheme meets all the criteria set down by the Welsh Office. The scheme was not approved by the Welsh Office and Mid Glamorgan was singularly badly hit.
In the programme approved for 1991–92, Mid Glamorgan was allocated 14·9 per cent. of the available funds; it has 18·7 per cent. of the Welsh population. South Glamorgan has 14 per cent. of the Welsh population; it was allocated 37·7 per cent. of available funds. West Glamorgan, with 12·6 per cent. of the Welsh population, was allocated 16·7 per cent. of the funds. Our community in Mid Glamorgan is disadvantaged. We saw the same pattern in the past. In the past three years, Mid Glamorgan was allocated on average 15 per cent. of the


total. The average allocated to South Glamorgan was 25 per cent. of the total funds available and the average allocation to West Glamorgan was 31·3 per cent.
In the next two years the average funds that will be made available to Mid Glamorgan will be 17·8 per cent. but to South Glamorgan it will be a massive 46 per cent. I use those figures to show that we in Mid Glamorgan have been done a great disservice by the Welsh Office. Two decisions have particularly disadvantaged us. The first is the decision that the expenditure of £250 million on the Conwy tunnel in the Minister's constituency should be top-sliced off all the expenditure available to Wales. As a result, the lion's share of Welsh money is going to the Minister's constituency. There is a much reduced pool to share out between the other counties of Wales. Secondly, even from that limited pool, South Glamorgan receives the lion's share because of the Government's commitment. I make no criticism of the Butetown link road; I have no reservations about the expenditure on that. The lion's share of the remaining pool has gone to the Butetown link road and we know why the Government are pouring funds into that development.
If the Minister wants to have public support for his road programme and the concept of a new crossing, and if he wants balanced, stable communities in the valleys of Wales, he must listen when the people of the valleys say, "We must have adequate communications". He must ensure that we are linked to the M4. It is only if he provides that sort of investment that we can benefit from the prospect of a second Severn crossing.

Mr. Paul Murphy: This has been a singularly well informed debate. I hope that the Minister of State, Welsh Office and the Minister for Public Transport can return to the Welsh Office and the Department of Transport, respectively, with many important and useful ideas from this debate.
I remember, as will all Welsh Members, the opening of the Severn bridge and the hope that it brought to the people of Wales that Wales and England would come closer. In many respects, that dream has become a nightmare. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) who, over many years, has led and championed a campaign to improve the conditions on the bridge.
Only last week, many hundreds of motorists and I had to face a 73-mile detour round Gloucestershire into south Wales because the bridge was yet again closed to all traffic. My hon. Friends have highlighted those delays. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred to the regular delays on the bridge caused by bad weather, high winds and accidents. Just one accident can mean miles of delays and hold-ups.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) rightly said that the present bridge was badly designed in the first place. We have been paying for that financially, economically and socially. I understand from the Minister that the present repairs to the bridge are due to be finished by August 1991. I hope that that will be the case. The imposition of the 40 mph speed limit and the introduction of the narrow lanes which have been there since 1985 have led to a 40 per cent. increase in traffic, the number of accidents annually varying between 65 and 31.

The fact that the bridge is actually damaging the Welsh economy means that we welcome a second crossing into the Principality.
The present bridge carries 6,600 million tonnes of goods into Wales, and more than 800 million tonnes out of Wales. The crossing is vital to Wales because it brings much-needed inward investment. Europeans, Japanese and others see the bridge as a way into south Wales to develop our region. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly rightly said that the much-vaunted valleys initiative, which the Secretary of State for Wales launched some years ago, relies heavily on a proper transport and highways infrastucture with links to the M4 and both bridges. Unless the promised developments and improvements go ahead, the valleys initiative and talk of improvement in the area are nonsense.
The Confederation of British Industry, the Welsh Development Agency, all our local authorities, the trade unions and every political party in Wales recognise the importance of a second crossing for Wales. That is why we welcome it. However, there are essential and important safeguards which I hope will be built into the Bill as it goes through its somewhat complicated parliamentary procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West rightly pointed to the need to have another look at the basis on which the bridge is financed. The Department of Transport is providing £148 million and the Welsh Office £45 million. The linkage of both bridges may bring many problems for the future financing of this bridge. The Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales has never accepted the £122 million historic debt, saying that it should be written off. If that is done, it will bring about a 20 per cent. reduction in tolls on the bridge. We need a thorough financial investigation into that.
There is a need to protect the countryside and wildlife. We must pay special regard to Avon and Gwent which will be affected by noise and visual intrusion. There is also a need to ensure proper connections from the bridge to the M4 and M5. We in Wales believe that if there is a motorway standard of four lanes each way in England, it is right and proper that there should be a similar one in Wales. There is no reason whatever for any differentiation between Wales and England in that respect.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East said, we must be extremely careful that the building of the bridge is not a precedent for future schemes in Britain. John Laing is backed by French financial institutions which want to break into the United Kingdom market to finance infrastructure projects privately. That might not be good for the British economy generally.
The tolls are of great concern to the people of Wales. Some months ago tolls were increased to £2 for cars. I believed, as did many hon. Members, that that was to sweeten possible buyers and to make the bridge more acceptable to the private sector. Under the present regime the tolls will end by 2006. Today hon. Members have repeatedly pointed out that it is not right that increased tolls should be levied on the existing bridge, before the new crossing is built. That is wholly unacceptable. Under the Bill, tolls will possibly continue until 2025.
The Department of Transport should deal with the maintenance costs after 2006, thus ensuring lower tolls. It is unbelievable—indeed, it is staggering—that in the past 20 years the tolls have increased by 1,600 per cent.—an increase in real terms of 135 per cent. The cost of collecting


the tolls amounts to 26 per cent. of the total income from tolls. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly referred to the findings on tolls of the Select Committee on Transport and I hope that they will form a backcloth to our consideration of this Bill in Committee.
The Bill envisages big increases for private cars—an immediate 42·5 per cent. increase to £2·85 and, assuming 8 per cent. inflation, an increase to £4·50 by 1995. Goods vehicles will pay twice the present level. Those figures should be reviewed during the passage of the Bill. The Bill does not make provision for local authorities and others to object to increased tolls over the next 30 years, as they can do at present. That is wholly unacceptable. In Committee and elsewhere, we shall press to have that changed.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the two bridges should be the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales. The Bill envisages that only the Secretary of State for Transport will have responsibility. That is wrong. The Welsh Office has an important role to play.
The whole of Wales will look with great interest at what is to occur. The crossing is of great importance to our economy. Unless we get it right now, we shall store up immense social and economic problems for the future of our country.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): It gives me great pleasure as Minister of State to commend this Bill to the House and to have heard the general welcome for it, despite the many detailed criticisms which I cannot possibly answer in the few minutes remaining to me. My personal pleasure is heightened by the fact that I witnessed the key stages of the construction of the existing bridge, and I was present at its opening by Her Majesty the Queen in 1966. It was not thought to be poorly designed then.
I have also had the pleasure of playing a part in drawing up the present proposals since we began thinking about them, as the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) reminded us, in the early 1980s. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the thinking that has gone into the proposals is by no means a negation of the Government's responsibility; rather, it is a demonstration of their total commitment.
Since the bridge was opened 25 years ago, it has made a vital contribution to the major economic growth of south Wales and has added to the attractiveness of the area for incoming investment from the United Kingdom and abroad. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport noted, the bridge has become something of a victim of its own success. The increasing demands placed upon it, particularly in the past decade, have led to the need for increased capacity and we are now seeking to meet that within the provisions of the Bill.
There is no question in our mind, and certainly not in the minds of hon. Members representing Wales, about the need for the second Severn crossing. Its importance to Wales, and to both sides of the estuary, cannot be overstated. I believe that the scheme in the Bill is exciting

and presents great opportunities for the future. The bridge will be an international showpiece, and it will provide an impressive gateway to Wales.
The bridge's design features will relieve many of the difficulties experienced on the existing crossing. It will be a dual three-lane motorway, plus hard shoulder, which will reduce the risk of congestion from breakdowns and accidents. Most importantly, the new bridge will have wind shielding throughout its entire length which will ensure that the new crossing will remain open to all traffic except during the most extreme weather conditions. All that, together with the reduced length of the proposed route as compared with that via the existing bridge, will relieve present and predicted traffic congestion. It will also result in considerable savings in time and vehicle operating costs.
On a broader level, the new crossing will help greatly to maintain and increase the momentum of economic regeneration in Wales. It will improve the profitability of industry by facilitating access to the rest of Great Britain and Europe.
I also welcome the opportunities provided in the Bill for participation with the private sector in undertaking such a development. In common with other major infrastructure schemes of this kind, there will inevitably be local concerns. We have consulted widely on the scheme at various stages of its planning and we have been sensitive to local opinion as we have developed our proposals. In Wales we have been conscious, for example, of the effects on villages such as Rogiet, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport, East, which will be close to the route of the new approach road. We have also recognised the concerns expressed in planning the route. We recognise the impact of the new crossing on other parts of Wales and on other roads in Wales, such as the A469, mentioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) seemed to welcome the scheme, but he was critical about its financing—the tolling—and other aspects. I must tell him, however, that it was a Labour Government who enacted the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, which originally provided for tolling at the present bridge. In recent years this Government have also recognised tolls as a means by which private enterprise and initiative can be harnessed for the provision of not only estuarial crossings but new roads. A Bill that would facilitate a more general provision in future of new toll roads and crossings is currently being considered in another place.
In the case of the second Severn bridge, two strong arguments lead us to the conclusion that the best way to finance the project is through tolls. I do not want to press the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on whether he is reneging on the views expressed in 1964 by the then Labour Minister, whose opinion was clear:
My policy is that tolls should be charged on expensive new river crossings, such as the Severn Bridge, which will provide exceptional savings in cost and time to a clearly defined category of road users."—[Official Report, 8 December 1964; Vol. 703, c. 186.]
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East also referred to the second report of the Select Committee on Transport for 1985–86. The Government's policy on the tolling of estuarial crossings was explained clearly in their reply to that report, and that policy has not changed. Hon. Members have mentioned other crossings, but it would not be practicable to levy tolls at all estuarial crossings,


especially when a convenient alternative to that crossing exists—the A55, for example, is in close proximity to the new tunnel under the Conwy, in my constituency.
I assure the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that the privately funded scheme for the provision of the second Severn crossing was selected on the basis that it offered the best overall value for money of all those schemes submitted, whether for private or public financing, by the selected bidders. Bids for the scheme were sought on terms as near as practicable to being directly comparable. Before a final decision was made, the shortlisted bids were exhaustively evaluated to assess the full range of costs and benefits, direct and indirect, which each offered. The assessment took into account, for example, the implications of cost overruns, the extent to which risks were being borne by the concessionaire or the taxpayer, and the amounts of tax payable.

Mr. Alan Williams: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have just one minute left.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has referred to alternative designs and costings. In Committee it would be advantageous to have those alternative costings and other such information. Once we go into Committee, I will be unable to raise that matter with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and therefore I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to give a guarantee that he will make that information available to the House.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Many of the arguments that have been made in this short debate cannot be answered within the minute remaining. Those matters will arise again at local level before the Select Committee and when the Bill is in Committee.
I stress that the Bill will undoubtedly result in positive benefits to those in Wales and on the Severn side. It represents an important step in bringing the resources of the private sector into a major transport project. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—


(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the twenty-first day after this day, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Select Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
That three be the Quorum of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

SEVERN BRIDGES BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Severn Bridges Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State under the Act and of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money so provided.—[Mr. Patnick.]

WAYS AND MEANS

SEVERN BRIDGES BILL

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Severn Bridges Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the levying of tolls by the Secretary of State in respect of vehicles using the existing Severn bridge or the second Severn bridge constructed in pursuance of the Act,
(2) the imposition of charges in respect of the removal, or the repair, adjustment or refuelling, of vehicles at rest in places on or near the bridges in relation to which regulations made under the Act have effect, and
(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by or on behalf of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That, since no Petitions remain against the Bill, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7 pm

Mr. Roger Knapman: The Bill has been drafted to give the two generating companies the power to do nothing more than lay cooling water works in the river Humber. Those works will serve generating stations being built under powers already granted by the Secretary of State for Energy. Therefore, we are not discussing—at least, I hope that we are not discussing—the principle of building a power station on that site. In addition, we should not be discussing the virtues of one form of generation against any other. Those issues have been discussed elsewhere over many years.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave consent as long ago as June 1972 to the suitability of the Killingholme site for power generation. The House endorsed that decision in July 1972 by approving the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act 1972. The Secretary of State for Energy gave further consent in 1990 for PowerGen and National Power each to build a combined cycle gas turbine development with a capacity of up to 1,000 MW. At that time no organisations with legitimate interests in the river objected to the proposals. It was made clear that cooling water supplies would need to be taken from, and returned to, the river Humber. That applied whatever type of fuel was used.
By virtue of the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act and the 1990 planning consent, both the House and the Secretary of State for Energy have already endorsed the decision to build generating stations on a site at Killingholme. In essence, the new Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill merely seeks the permission of the House to build shorter cooling water intake and outfall works than would have been built under the 1972 Act. Therefore, all that is now required is statutory approval for the laying of pipes related to that development. The generating stations are already under construction by virtue of the planning consent that has already been obtained. Therefore, it is absolutely essential

for the House to agree to revive the Bill today and allow it to pass through its various stages so that the ancillary works required for the generating stations can be started.
Objectors to the Bill at this late stage have already cost a great deal of time and money and it is difficult to see why.

Mr. Michael Welsh: The hon. Gentleman says that the objectors have cost a lot of money because time has been taken, but it is important to explain that until last November it was illegal to pass the Bill. In 1975 the Council of Ministers decided that gas could not be used to make electricity. Therefore, nobody had held up the Bill except the EC because permission was only given last November.

Mr. Knapman: I was merely referring to the fact that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and, later, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) saw fit to object to the Bill. Those objections have delayed the Bill, which seems perfectly straightforward and I cannot see why that should have been done.
National Power and PowerGen are required to promote the private Bill. The Bill is required to overcome the prohibitions of the Humber Conservancy Act 1905 that prevents the laying of pipes on or in the foreshore and bed of the Humber between the river line and the high water mark without parliamentary approval, which is why we are here today. Therefore, by promoting the Bill, National Power and PowerGen are complying with the parliamentary requirements of the 1905 Act; they are not in any way attempting to circumvent normal planning procedures—far from it. The relevant local authorities have been consulted and have given consent to the proposed plans for the power stations. They have stated that they will not object to the cooling water works proposals outlined in the 1989 Bill.
As evidence of local authority approval, I have a letter from Glanford borough council dated 11 December 1989 stating that the borough council's planning committee has no objections to the Bill's proposals. The letter was from the senior solicitor of Glanford borough council, writing to the planning and development services officer of the Central Electricity Generating Board. It stated:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Proposed Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill.
Further to my letter dated 16 November 1989 I am now able to inform you that on 7 December the Borough Council's Planning Committee resolved that Glanford wishes to raise no objections to the proposals contained in the Bill.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: It was interesting to hear the letter sent from Glanford borough council planning committee, but is it not also true that Humberside county council, which is Labour controlled, did not object to the proposal?

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. It is my understanding that no objections from any of the local interested parties have been received. I intended to read out a list of the various organisations which have not objected.
The local authorities have taken the same stance in respect of the power stations proposed by the CEGB in 1972 and again in 1989, after the CEGB, National Power and PowerGen had revised plans for the site and decided to build smaller capacity combined cycle gas turbine stations. Furthermore—this is what Opposition Members are putting at risk—the plants will provide immediate


short-term employment for construction workers, and local employment once the plant is in operation. Up to 550 workers will be employed by PowerGen during the construction phase and National Power will need about 350 workers.
Consultations have taken place not only with local authorities, but with the National Rivers Authority, which will need to approve the proposals before a licence can be granted to permit the two generators to extract water from and discharge water into the Humber. Other consultations have been undertaken during the drafting and preview stages of the Bill. Where necessary, the proposals in the Bill have been amended to provide appropriate safeguards as requested by interested parties, or appropriate undertakings have been given.
The following organisations have already been consulted as a result, and there has been no further correspondence from British Telecom since December 1989. The Yorkshire electricity board has said that none of its apparatus will be affected and British Gas has said that no gas apparatus will be affected. The British Coal Corporation confirmed on 23 January 1990 that it was content. As for Anglian Water plc, an undertaking to Anglian Water Services Limited has been agreed a nd an executed document is awaited. The Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Associated British Ports, Humber Oil Terminals Trustees Limited, Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham), and the National Rivers Authority have all been consulted. None have any objections.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Private Bills go through a certain procedure; there are advertisements in the newspapers that the Bill is proceeding through the House and the public are advised of how they can gain access to its proceedings, but I know from my experience of local government that the vast majority of the public in the affected area may be unaware that the Bill is going through the House, and even if they are aware of it they are at a loss to understand how to go about voicing their concerns about it. I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that the national interested parties have been made aware of the Bill, but perhaps the general public are unaware of its implications. I know of at least one previous Bill whose effects were unknown to the public.

Mr. Knapman: I am surprised to hear that, because among the bodies that I have stated have no objection are Glanford borough council and the Labour-controlled county council. I should have thought that they would not have reached their decision before ascertaining local opinion. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that those councils, most of whose members belong to his party, have not taken the opportunity to find out what public opinion is, something is wrong. I do not believe that he thinks, on further reflection, that that is so.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from trying to circumvent normal planning procedures, were it not for the Humber Conservancy Act 1905, if the promoters of the Bill had applied for planning consent in the usual way it would have been granted to them? It is only because of the 1905 Act that my hon. Friend has had to bring the matter to the House today.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The 1905 Act was passed to extend and amend Acts of 1852

and of 1899 which conferred further powers on the commissioners. The original Acts were passed to draw a uniform development line in the river beyond which tidal works could not extend. The purpose of the 1905 Act was to protect the river regime and navigation on the river. It conferred powers on the commissioners to dredge the river and to carry out other works to assist and improve navigation. So the commissioners can exercise certain powers but not others. The 1905 Act mentions private Acts of Parliament being required, which is why we are here tonight—so my hon. Friend was absolutely correct.
The Humber Conservancy Acts were enacted to confer powers on the commissioners for the protection of the river regime and of navigable waters. Subject to the provisions of the 1905 Act, no person may make or form any recess, dock bed for boat or barges, basin, pier or jetty, landing place, quay or embankement wall or other works on the foreshore or bed of the Humber between the river lines and high water mark. The only way in which the prohibitions in the 1905 Act can be overcome is by the promotion of a further Act of Parliament—hence the need for this Bill and this revival motion.
The House has already given approval to the laying of pipes in the Humber—when it approved the July 1972 Act. Unfortunately, that Act gave approval for pipes which are longer than necessary for the current power station developments. So the design of the 1972 cooling waterworks cannot be optimised. Further, Associated British Ports would require the 1972 works to be lowered should it be required at some future date to dredge the river as part of its statutory duties. Indeed, the 1972 Act was designed to give the then CEGB powers to lay pipes in the Humber for a much larger 4,000 MW power station and it laid down in some detail the length of the cooling water works permitted. The Act allowed for two works extending from the shore into the river in a north-easterly direction for a distance of new fewer than 530 yds or 486 m and terminating in an intake of 780 yds or 715 m, terminating in an outfall.
The Act allowed these intake and outfall works to be moved vertically and laterally within the limits of deviation but regrettably it prohibited any substantial alteration, including any substantial reduction in the lengths of the pipes. By comparison, under the 1989 Bill the longest specified intake would be only 390 m and the longest specified outfall only 290. As a result, the obligations of the 1972 Act would require the companies to build pipes that would extend and intrude further into the river Humber than is required, and longer pipes would involve the companies in much greater construction costs. In addition, section 35 of the 1972 Act gave consent, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, for the works if they were commenced within five years of the passing of the Act. Those powers have now expired.
National Power and PowerGen intend to build combined cycle gas turbine stations which, like any other power stations, need cooling water works. National Power is building a station of 650 MW and PowerGen two stations of 450 MW each. These stations will use indirect cooling works and will need much less water than if they used direct cooling methods such as those proposed under the works in the 1972 Act. The system of indirect cooling ensures that there is less environmental impact on the river Humber than would result from direct cooling works.
The indirect cooling system will involve water being passed through the condensers and cooled by air using


cooling towers with the same water, which is then recirculated. Only the water evaporated in the cooling towers and a small quantity of purge water is required to be replaced, therefore. So the combination of indirect cooling and combined cycle gas turbine technology means that requirements for cooling water are significantly reduced. The Killingholme development will require only about 5 per cent. of the water used for direct cooling at existing power stations.

Mr. Redmond: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I cannot understand why he is promoting this Bill. I could find no reason why he should in the Register of Members' Interests. How did he come to draw the short straw and end up promoting this Bill?

Mr. Knapman: The answer is that I am a man of many parts and many talents.

Dr. Michael Clark: It is important that we fully understand what my hon. Friend is proposing. Will he confirm that the 1972 Act contained proposals for various works which were considerably longer and deeper than the works proposed in this Bill, and that due to the wording of the 1972 Act those works cannot be contracted, shortened or made smaller in any way? This Bill will enable the works to be diminished as compared with those proposed in 1972.

Mr. Knapman: I can confirm all that my hon. Friend says. The outfalls anticipated in the 1972 Act are approximately double the length of those that are now proposed. That is good environmentally and commercially and in every other sense. It is therefore difficult to see why there are objections to the Bill.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I am becoming confused about the hon. Gentleman's proposals. Perhaps he could assist. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is presenting a revival motion to the House.

Mr. Moss: That is correct.

Mr. Eadie: If the Bill is approved, it will require a Second Reading. Is that correct?

Mr. Moss: That is correct.

Mr. Eadie: That assists the House to some extent. I do not quarrel with the way in which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) presents his case, but he gives the House the impression that the revival motion is it, so to speak.

Mr. Knapman: I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is presenting the motion, and I am trying to show hon. Members who object to the Bill the folly of their ways. The Bill has absolutely nothing to do with coal or with the choice of fuel. I fear that it is a mundane Bill dealing with certain types of inlets to and outlets from the Humber to the power stations which are already being constructed. I should love to talk about coal and about the paper produced by the Labour party which says that we should rely almost entirely on coal, but if I did so I should immediately be ruled out of order.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to say how the debate

should be conducted and to lay down strictures? He is certainly entitled to articulate his opinion and his interpretation of the motion that he presents, but it is for the Chair to determine the conduct of the debate. I seek guidance on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Bill has not yet been debated in the House. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) says, we are debating a revival motion and comments must be related to that. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is introducing the motion, and as the Bill has not yet been debated in the House, I thought it right to give him reasonable latitude to explain the background to the motion. That is why I am giving him more than the customary flexibility.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Frank Haynes: It is not often that I smell a rat in this place, but I smell one now.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman used that line during the debate on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Haynes: Yes, because I smelt a rat then too. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is also involved in this. There are a number of faces in the House which are familiar to such debates. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) mentioned PowerGen. Is he aware that, in its magazine, PowerGen said that it would get this approved by August last year? What have these familiar faces been up to? My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) was right when he said that the hon. Member for Stroud had drawn the short straw. He is pouring out a load of rubbish and we have to put up with it.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman is right in only one respect—that he has to put up with it.
The Bill is in five parts, but I shall not take the House through all of them in any detail. Hon. Members may be grateful for that, but of course on Second Reading I may be forced to speak at some length. Part I deals with the preliminaries and gives details of the phrases used in the Bill. Part II details the works involved. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members had spent 10 minutes reading part II of the Bill, they would not be so excited.
Schedule 4 details all the works that National Power would be given power to construct and provides for three intakes and three outfalls of modest length compared with the long ones proposed in the 1972 Bill. Schedule 5 details the rights given to PowerGen to construct works. It has similar rights for works Nos. 7 to 12.
Part III gives the power to acquire land. That is entirely normal and largely in accordance with the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Part IV is the crux of the matter. It contains the protective provisions for other bodies which are interested in the Bill and which have made no objection whatever. Under schedule 25 is the Humber Bridge board and under schedule 26 is Associated British Ports.

Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman is likely to make his own speech, but I shall give way to him once again.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the people who were consulted have no


objections. When did the promoters of the Bill meet the various bodies to discuss amendments to take account of objections? Has PowerGen or National Power given any money to meet certain requirements of objectors?

Mr. Knapman: Not to my knowledge, for the simple reason that until the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) objected to the Bill no one else had objected to it. Of course it went through the other place and therefore the question of objection does not arise.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that no one objected because the battle about the type of power station to be built and whether it should be gas fired, oil fired or nuclear powered is over? A decision has been taken and those with coal mining interests who seek to delay proceedings on this revival motion only deprive the whole of the north-east, and Humberside in particular, of badly needed power. Power stations have to be justified, but that argument is over and it is pointless to talk about cooling water which all power stations have to use.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is right. Not only would other forms of power station require greater amounts of water to be abstracted from the Humber, but in 1972 there was something of a storm when an oil-fired station was proposed. Subsequent happenings led to proposals for a gas-fired station. In early 1991 people are still fighting the battles that were fought in 1972 and no doubt the Opposition are still fighting many of the battles of the 1930s.
As I have said, part IV of the Bill is the crux of the matter. It contains the protective provisions and touches on the intervention of the hon. Member for Don Valley. It mentions the Humber Bridge Board and Associated British Ports and more recently the British Coal Corporation. That is a summary of the Bill.
The progress of the Bill is as follows. It was promoted successfully through the other place, despite a challenge from the Coalfied Communities Campaign. It is important to note that it did not allege that the proposals in the Bill were in any way defective, but said that the generation of electricity from gas would have a consequential effect on its members' welfare. That objection was defeated in Committee in the other place on 10 May 1990. Therefore, the Bill was placed before an unopposed Lords Committee on 24 May and received its formal Third Reading on 18 June. The House of Commons received the Bill on the same day. It was formally tabled and blocked, as I have described.
I see no reason why the Bill should have been blocked, as my hon. Friends have said, and I hope that with the information that I have given the House will see its way clear to pass this revival motion.

Mr. George J. Buckley: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said glibly that there was nothing dangerous or difficult in the Bill as it related to the generation of electricity. I beg to differ. We cannot ignore the fact that these power stations will be powered by gas. The suggestion that they might be powered by nuclear energy caused quite a stir. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made strong representations on that.

Mr. Moss: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Secretary of State has given clearance, under the Electricity Act 1989, for two power stations burning gas to be on the Killingholme site, and that this motion has nothing whatever to do with nuclear power?

Mr. Buckley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) said, the Secretary of State was acting illegally because, under the European regulations, it was illegal for him to give permission for power stations to generate electricity by gas. I suspect that the Bill has been delayed to allow the Government the opportunity to persuade the EEC to withdraw its reservations about using gas to generate electricity.
The hon. Member for Stroud said that if we delayed the Bill or opposed it so strongly that we defeated it we would deprive the north-east of much-needed energy. However, my understanding is that the north-east is quite well endowed with electricity and that the shortage of power is in the south. The Government and other organisations have urged us to reduce our electricity demands, so it is more likely that we shall have over-capacity than shortage of capacity in electricity generation.
We had a long debate on another private Bill concerned with the use of the Humber to import large tonnages of coal. The Humber is becoming an increasingly important and busy estuary to the extent that there may be danger to shipping. I do not suggest that the power stations have anything to do with shipping, but they do have something to do with the use of the Humber estuary, which is important.
The situation is not as clear as the hon. Member for Stroud claimed. He spoke about depriving the Humber estuary area of much-needed employment. I could understand it if an hon. Member representing that area made that point, but I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Stroud made it. While it would not affect his constituency, the project would affect my constituency and those of other hon. Members, and, in particular, it would affect employment in the area.
Conservative Members may dismiss, off the cuff, our arguments in favour of the use of coal as a major generating source. However, although the project may result in a few jobs for the area, our constituents will lose jobs because of the change in the generation of electricity from solid fuel. Conservative Members should understand that we make our points on the basis of the interest of our constituents. There is no joy in our constituents losing thousands of jobs while the Killingholme project creates a few jobs, whether in short-term construction or long-term generation.

Mr. Knapman: I repeat that the Bill is not about which type of power is used to generate electricity. It is purely about pipes into and from the Humber. That is the point of the Bill. Therefore, employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not affected by the Bill.

Mr. Buckley: It has a direct effect on the constituents whom I represent because the proposed power stations will be powered by gas rather than solid fuel.
In a debate on energy and generation, we should talk about the consequences of using gas as a major producer of electricity. It could have economic, employment and balance of payments consequences. The short-term thinking by the Government and the promoters of the Bill,


on behalf of PowerGen and National Power, leads them to say that there are no significant consequences in converting to the production of electricity by gas.

Mr. Eadie: It is remarkable that attempts to circumscribe the debate have been made. My hon. Friend is showing the impact of the Bill. Does he agree that there has been a change since the Bill was first mooted and since the first attempts to push it through the House? I recall telling the House in a previous debate that , when I met the Norwegian commanders in NATO, I asked them what would happen if a conflict broke out in the North sea and what consequences it would have for the oil and gas installations. They told me that the installations could not be defended. As a strategic aspect is now involved, because we may soon be involved in a war in the Gulf, the situation has changed since the House last addressed the subject.

Mr. Buckley: I take my hon. Friend's point. The impact of the Bill will be more far-reaching than the hon. Member for Stroud has suggested. He is talking about inputs and outtakes of water from the Humber and short pipes and long pipes. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) spoke about drawing the short straw rather than the long pipe, and the hon. Gentleman is suffering from that. I do not want to lumber the hon. Member with this, but he is not wrestling with the short Pipe.

Mr. Dickens: PowerGen and National Power have given undertakings to honour their contracts as large buyers of British coal up until 1993. Subsequently, they expect to be major buyers of British coal as long as negotiations lead to a commercially sensible conclusion. I do not see why that should end. British Coal would still be the biggest supplier to those organisations.

Mr. Buckley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is relevant to the argument that I am advancing on behalf of my constituents. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, however, that the two power stations could be built within a three-year contract? That is the contract that British Coal has with National Power and PowerGen, and it is linked to a certain tonnage of coal. I accept that my constituents have an interest in investment in British Coal—

Mr. Alan Meale: Perhaps my hon. Friend will remind the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that evidence was given to the Select Committee on Energy by the Central Electricity Generating Board that it would like to import up to 10 million tonnes of foreign coal through the ports on the east coast.

Mr. Buckley: We are, of course, talking about gas. A Bill dealing with the importation of coal has passed through the House and the consequences for the coal industry of that measure will be considerable. We are talking about an alternative fuel—gas—that will offer security and continuity of supply. Perhaps gas will not provide the guarantees for which some Conservative Members hope.
Some of the gas supplied from the North sea is coming from the Norwegian sector. If power stations are turning towards gas, the increased demand will be met by the

Norwegian sector, not the British sector. Conservative Members have tried to talk down the consequences of the Bill, but we must consider the long-term consequences if the Government decide that gas-fired power generation is something that should be expanded. What would be the consequences for gas supply if we started building gas-powered generating stations along estuaries? Given the Gulf crisis, much of our imported supply would come from politically vulnerable areas. In the long term, much of our gas supply might have to come from the Soviet Union, for example, which has had recent experience of—

Mr. Moss: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how we are to be supplied with gas from the Soviet Union when there is no pipeline across the North sea.

Mr. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman's intervention illustrates the limited knowledge of Conservative Members. Europe is linked to the Soviet Union by a major gas supply pipe.
There is a shortfall in electricity supply in the south-east of the United Kingdom, not the north-east. A gas supply link between the United Kingdom and Europe would be a requirement if gas-fired power stations were situated in the south-east. It would be convenient to be linked to a major supply of gas from the Urals, for example.
Another major supply of gas would come from Algeria, which is another area of political difficulty, especially when we consider the long-term supply of gas, which will have a significant effect on future energy supplies generally to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Moss: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that with the Gulf crisis, or a Gulf war, we shall not have enough gas in the short to medium term and that we shall have to import it from the Soviet Union through a non-existent pipeline or import from Algeria by sea, presumably in liquefied form. Is he not aware that it was said in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy that there is about 10 GW of capacity from the known reserves of British Gas and that that could be used to produce electricity over and above the current demand of the country as a whole through the civilian subscribers to British Gas?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a revival motion, and hon. Members must address their remarks to that.

Mr. Buckley: I strayed from the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was concerned about the long-term consequences if two power stations are dependent on North sea gas for their power generation. That is relevant to the energy policy that is being outlined for the future. I see that the sponsor, the hon. Member for Stroud, is receiving another briefing from his adviser, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark). I understand that the hon. Member for Stroud was prompted earlier in the debate. It is good to receive expert advice from Conservative Members who are mindful of the problems that we face.

Mr. Moss: It is good advice.

Mr. Buckley: It may be good advice.
The Bill seeks to amend or change earlier proposals. It is—

Dr. Michael Clark: The 1972 legislation contained a proposal to build a 4,000 MW oil-fired power station. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about employment in his constituency. I understand also that the coal lobby wants to ensure that as much coal is burnt as possible. It is proposed now that there should be a maximum of 2,000 MW of gas-fired generation. That is only half of that which was proposed in 1972. I accept that the 1972 proposal was based on non-coal-fired generation, as is the current proposal. I repeat, however, that the current proposal is only half the non-coal proposal of 1972. It is possible that that is the reason for a Labour-controlled local authority in the area in question being in favour of the proposal. Less electricity will be produced than that which would have been generated if the 1972 proposal had been implemented, and there will be more scope for more coal to be burnt elsewhere.

Mr. Buckley: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy for the expert information that he has given to the House. The hon. Gentleman has given support to my argument. The need to increase generation in the north-east is not as valid as Conservative Members have claimed. I accept that the 1972 proposal of 4,000 MW has been reduced by 50 per cent. That means that an increase in energy supply is not justified in terms of the 1972 legislation.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) lost me in his intervention. He suggested that a reduction from 4,000 to 2,000 MW would be beneficial because that would enable us to burn more coal elsewhere. I oppose the carry-over motion because of the impact that the Bill will have on the country generally. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that there is no national power policy or energy policy. We are living from hand to mouth, and that is why my hon. Friends and I are concerned about the future. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the House whether he agrees that there should be a national energy policy to replace the prevailing market forces.

Mr. Buckley: My hon. Friend emphasises the main point of my argument, which is that the Bill represents a slipshod approach to Britain's energy supply problem on which the Government have no short-term or long-term policy. We seem to be basing our requirements on imported energy. That is ludicrous when one considers the abundance of energy to which this country has had access over the past decade. We were in the forefront of developing nuclear energy, and we had the bonanza of North sea oil, together with an abundance of coal reserves and North sea gas as well.
As to North sea gas reserves, which are fairly extensive, if we substantially increase our consumption from that source, we shall increasingly come to depend in the near future on other sources of gas supply.
Although I acknowledge the points made by those who support the carry-over motion, the effects will be more far reaching than the length of a pipe into the estuary and the amount of water that will flow through it. The stations will have an impact on long-term thinking about this nation's energy's supplies.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): It may be helpful if I intervene briefly at this stage to give the Government's general view of the Bill and of the revival motion in particular. I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that I will not speak long enough to exclude him from contributing to the debate.
The works authorised by the Bill will form an integral part of two new gas-fired power stations that are to be constructed by National Power and PowerGen on Humberside. They are among the first of a new generation of gas-fired stations that offer certain efficiency and environmental advantages. Such stations are quicker and cheaper to construct, and the Government see no objection to them on environmental grounds. In fact, in terms of global warming, there may be advantages in generating electricity, at least in part, by burning more gas.
As the House may know, a gas-fired power station produces virtually no sulphur dioxide and only about one quarter of the nitrogen oxides and about one half of the carbon dioxide emissions for the same electrical output as an equivalent coal-fired power station. As we believe it probable that there will be an increase in global atmospheric temperatures due to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is obviously important that we find ways in the years ahead of stabilising and perhaps reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Dr. Michael Clark: I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister must take a neutral stance in respect of the Bill, but is not he being slightly unfair when he says that the Government have no objections to the stations on environmental grounds? Would not it be fairer to say that, on environmental grounds, the Government welcome the burning of gas rather than coal?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This is not my Bill, but I will indicate my position at the end of these remarks. As the environment has been mentioned several times, I thought it proper to give just an outline of the Government's attitude. I have already indicated that, in terms of protecting the global atmosphere, the burning of gas offers certain advantages over other fossil fuels.

Mr. Redmond: The technology is available to reduce toxic emissions from coal-fired stations, but a softly-softly approach is being adopted because of the cost of adopting it. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on the part that gas could play in the Bill, in respect of long-term requirements and a national energy policy. I understand that the price of coal has been pegged in relative terms to inflation in order to maintain a market for coal within the generation game. However, the price of electricity to the consumer has shot up, and it now bears no relation to the generators' costs. What is being done with those profits? Why are they not being ploughed back into energy generation by coal and into developing methods for reducing toxic emissions? That would produce genuine good, and create real competition between the various forms of energy.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Each form of energy generation offers its own balance of advantages and disadvantages. One advantage of gas over coal is that it produces less carbon dioxide for every unit of electricity. However, I


agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) that it is important that British Coal finds ways of burning coal more cleanly—and we fully support any efforts made in that direction.
I may say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that the global environment is not the only consideration, and that gas offers other advantages. It can be piped direct to the power station from the source, without the requirement for road or rail transport of fuel or of the resulting ash.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister is merely repeating the brief that we have all received from PowerGen about the advantages of the proposal. Given the question put to him by the hon. Member for Rocford (Dr. Clark), the Minister has a responsibility and a duty to be objective. The hon. Member for Rochford tried to compel the Minister to declare that the Government really prefer gas-generated energy. In the interests of objectivity, and in order that the House may be properly informed, the Minister will surely agree that if flue gas desulphurisation equipment were installed in coal-fired stations, that would make them environmentally friendly. Does the Minister agree that it is not for British Coal but for the power station operators to decide whether flue gas desulphurisation is to be installed?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of being hostile to coal in principle. I do not have an absolute preference for gas. Nor do I disapprove of coal, in principle. However, it is a fact of chemistry that burning a unit of coal produces more carbon dioxide than does an equivalent unit of gas. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there are technical and chemical ways of extracting sulphur dioxide from coal emissions, for example—and we are most anxious to promote that technology.
I am unwilling to go into too much detail about the substance of the Bill. If the revival motion is approved there may be an opportunity for us to debate the issue at greater length at another time. Also, the Government see no objection on efficiency grounds—indeed we envisage certain advantages—to building some additional gas-fired power stations, because combined cycle gas turbine generators will operate at about 50 per cent. efficiency, compared to 38 per cent. efficiency from the best coal-burning power stations available at present.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is it efficient to have a gas power station, which may operate well, if a couple of pits have to be closed, leaving coal which can never be removed as the shafts are completely filled in? In the long term, is that efficiency, or is it bad planning?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am unwilling to get into a general debate about the coal industry—an industry which I am most anxious to see prosper—because we are debating a revival motion. However, I look forward to debating the future of the British coal industry with the hon. Gentleman at some future date.
I must return to the point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already approved the application to build these two power stations on Humberside. Therefore, it is obvious that we should also approve the application to provide the ancillary works. In

the light of that, the Government hope that the House will approve the revival motion to enable the Bill to proceed to a Second Reading at another time.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not wish to keep the House too long. We welcome the Minister's commitment, and the Government's full support, for British Coal becoming more environmentally conscious through clean coal burning, although I think that that is the first time that I have heard that said. Perhaps the new Minister could explain to British Coal why, for the past few years, it has received no more than 1·5 per cent. of the research and development budget of millions that the Government have put into nuclear and other energy industries. Perhaps he could also explain why last year, when the Grimethorpe project sought help from the public sector, as directed by the Government, and received about £5 million from a Scandinavian company which later pulled out, the project was on the brink of collapse. It was one of the most advanced projects for clean coal burning in the world. I hope that the Minister, in his new post, will consider these issues, because they have worried many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I am also interested to hear that the Government see no objection to this development. I wish that we were discussing this matter after having had a debate on the Government's intentions for energy. Once again, we are debating a private Bill from a troubled area of Britain. We must have spent more time debating Killingholme than any other place in Britain. Tonight we are again discussing Killingholme and its effect on a national energy strategy, but we have been unable to discuss that strategy. I do not want to go into too much detail tonight because if the carry-over motion is approved we shall want to consider the absence of a national energy strategy and its effect on the present proposals. However, I must point out that I find it difficult to talk about a car exhaust without referring to the internal combustion engine, and I should have thought that most people would have the same problem.
The Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act 1972, which referred to outlay pipes from a power station which was to be built on the site, stopped the development. Therefore, we must in some small degree discuss developments on the site.
I speak on behalf of the Labour party when I say that we are reluctant to give our approval to the Bill, as it will enable the construction of two gas turbine generating stations without the House having given due consideration to the implications of increasing gas generation of electricity.
World supplies of gas are plentiful at the moment—we all know that—but they are finite. More important, in the short term, Britain's supplies of gas are limited. At current levels of consumption, United Kingdom gas will last between 25 and 40 years. If we allow gas to become a major generator of electricity, adding another 30 or 40 per cent. to present United Kingdom gas demand, we shall soon find ourselves dependent on gas imports—whether from Norway or the Soviet Union, we shall have to wait and see. Norway has a wide choice of alternative purchasers for its gas. Germany has taken an option on the Troll field and it is likely that we shall be considering repairing the existing European pipeline and building another and importing our gas from Russia.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) that there was no gas pipeline from Russia or northern Europe into this country at present. A number of years ago the Energy Select Committee—the Chairman of the Committee is present—produced a gas depletion policy document, and it was, and still is, the only obvious choice to couple into northern Europe when Britain's gas runs out. It is very likely that, out of all the gas producers that we know of at present and can envisage in the future, Russia will be a major exporter of gas to this country. That has major implications for us all and anyone with any knowledge of energy worldwide will know that that will be the case in the not-too-distant future if we start to generate electricity from gas. That was prevented until late last year when the EC directive that covered this country was withdrawn without any debate in the House about the effect that its withdrawal would have on our energy policies.
It has been reported that National Power has secured a supply for Killingholme A station from the Caister field, off the Lincolnshire coast, in the southern North sea. It has further been reported that that field has gas to last for only seven or eight years. The Minister said that this development would have little effect on the country, that gas would be piped direct to the station and that the Government envisaged no problems. However, combined cycle gas turbines have a lifetime which is much longer than seven or eight years. Where will the gas come from when the Caister field runs out? What will be the cost of gas at that time?

Mr. Redmond: At the moment there is a big gas sale on, encouraging home owners to install gas. However, one needs to consider the long term, perhaps 30 years from now. Reference has been made to gas consumption. If gas begins to run out, the law of supply and demand will prevail, prices will escalate and, even though power-generated gas stations would cease production, house owners would be required to meet the escalating cost of gas.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is right. I know that the current war situation is on all our minds at the moment, especially as the 15 January deadline is looming within the next 24 hours. What will happen to gas prices? They are tied to world oil prices. I hope that it does not happen, and I am sure that many hon. Members share that wish, but if war breaks out in the Gulf there could be a massive increase in gas prices within a few weeks. I hope that that is not the case, but we are vulnerable to that.
What will happen in seven or eight years' time when the gas in the Caister field has run out? Where will these two gas turbines be supplied from, and at what cost to the consumer?

Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Caister field supplying National Power's plant at Killingholme. Is he not aware that the gas in that field is off-spec—that it has a very high nitrogen content and cannot be used in normal British Gas conditions for the purposes of the domestic consumer? The gas is not coming out of the reserve for domestic consumption; it is highly specialised and its use in a power station is probably the best possible.

Mr. Barron: I do not deny that, but, according to press reports, seven or eight years' gas supply is going into those generators. Let me repeat my question: what will happen when that is gone? The question will have to be answered at some stage, preferably by the Minister.

Mr. Eadie: The question of gas importation is important. We know that, when British Gas appeared before the energy studies group, it said that it planned to have 8 to 10 GW of power station generation, basing its projection on the expectation that much of the gas would come from the Soviet Union.
As my hon. Friend has suggested, since we last discussed the Bill the position has changed dramatically. If a Gulf war breaks out, the Soviet Union will be in a powerful position in energy terms: not only will it have all that gas, but it will be the largest oil producer in Europe. The House should give some consideration to our indigenous energy sources.

Mr. Barron: Given his years of service as both an energy Minister and an Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend knows the position even better than I do. He served in the Government at the time of the oil price increases in the 1970s. We have not yet discussed all the outside influences on our national energy resources.
Other European utilities—although there is still talk of building combined-cycle gas power stations—will, they say, use gas only for peak-load operation; there is no plan for a major, irrreversible shift to gas burners. The number of permissions apparently granted by the Department of Energy leads us to believe that it will take such action. We have not been told, however, whether the two power stations will operate the base-load system, thus using much more gas than peak-load operation would require—meeting two or three hours' demand per day, sometimes only in the late winter.
The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) mentioned the 1972 Act. That is indeed relevant, but I should point out that we are talking not about going from 4,000 to 2,000 MW, but about going from nought to 2,000. The people with whom I negotiated as a trade unionist before I entered the House would have loved that sort of logic: "You have won half of it anyway; you are giving away 2,000 MW." That is the way in which we should look at the position, although the other way may seem a nice mathematical method of arguing for gas generation.

Mr. Moss: As has been said many times, the hon. Gentleman is understood to support a national energy policy, controlled and planned from the centre. Has it not occurred to him that in 1972, when the application for the 4,000 MW oil-fired station was first put in, the planning had been carried out with the CEGB—perhaps by a Labour Government in 1970 or before—but the power station was never built? Why should a wonderful national energy policy plan a 4,000 MW station that is never built? So much for a national energy policy in the Labour party.

Mr. Barron: If we are to answer such questions, we should perhaps consider what happened in the middle east in 1973. We have still not learnt the lessons.

Mr. Allen McKay: The planning for the 1972 project took into consideration the then state of manufacturing industry and the accompanying need for energy resources. With the collapse of manufacturing industry since 1979, the position is different.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is entirely right.
It can be argued that a form of national power and electricity generation has operated, on and off, for a number of years. It can also be argued that most Governments, whatever their political colour, have tended to get it wrong, which is why it has been in a mess for more than 20 years. That does not mean, however, that we should not think things out before producing spatchcock measures to build generation plants. We should stop making the mistakes that we have made in the past; we should take a more national and strategic approach.
The country already faces a deficit in the energy balance of payments. In the first 10 months of 1990, Britain had a fuel trade deficit amounting to the equivalent of the cost of 2·2 million tonnes of coal. We live in an energy-rich country. How much larger can we afford to allow that deficit to become—not just in the short term, but permanently? We should not consider the cost of building the generators in relation to seven or eight years' supply from a particular field in the southern North sea; we should bear it in mind that in 10 years' time, when we still want to use the generators, we may be having to import our supply. That, in the end, is the real cost, not to the company but to the nation.
The increased use of gas for electricity generation will also have an impact on its price. At present, gas prices are relatively low. All the indications are that, if gas is diverted to electricity generation, the price will rise dramatically, and that will have an impact on both domestic gas and domestic electricity users, as well as on the generators themselves.
Gas is still a premium fuel and to burn it to produce electricity is a wasteful use of such a resource. Before enabling the two major generating companies to build gas turbine generators, the House should consider these important questions. Once again, a private Bill is being used to determine major strategic energy decisions which should be made by the Department of Energy and by the Ministers involved, regardless of their political colour. We have said all along, and will continue to say, that we want the matter to be debated in a proper fashion. We hope that, at some stage, the Government will find the time and the courage to do that, rather than adopting the spatchcock option of private Bills.

Mr. Michael Brown: First, I take up the final point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). We must get this right: the Bill is before the House only because last year the Government gave their approval first to PowerGen and then to National Power for the power stations to be built. Opposition Members should recognise that the power stations are being built at this very minute, and that one will be completed within months, if not weeks.

Mr. Knapman: Let us suppose, briefly, that every word uttered by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was correct. Would not the result of the Opposition's proposals be the denial to most power stations of the intake and outlet pipes that they obviously need?

Mr. Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his clarification of very difficult technical details when he opened the debate. I believe that it is wrong for the motives

of any hon. Member to be questioned when we are considering a private Bill. Every hon. Member present in the Chamber has a constituency reason for wanting to discuss the revival motion. Furthermore, all my hon. Friends have an interest in energy, which goes back to their membership of the Select Committee on Energy. My hon. Friends should be commended by my constituents for taking such an interest in our national energy industry. They should not be criticised and carped at by Opposition Members.
On 26 February 1986, nearly five years ago, I said to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were in the Chair at the time, that the CEGB planned, through its local agency Nirex, to dump nuclear waste in my constituency. I said to you that so long as I was Member of Parliament for Brigg and Cleethorpes that would not happen, and it did not happen. Only because that battle was won is my constituency in the fortunate position of having not a nuclear waste dump but two power stations, one being built by National Power and the other by PowerGen. In 1987 my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) had the good sense to abandon the ridiculous proposal to dump nuclear waste in my constituency. Having won that battle, we now have two private enterprise power stations being built, one of which is nearly completed.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud in his intervention, what would be the effect if Opposition Members were successful in their opposition to the revival motion or if they successfully opposed the Bill on Second or Third Reading? The effect would be that the Labour party would say to the public, "Two power stations in Michael Brown's parliamentary constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes will be completed by the time of the next general election, and we are proud to tell the people of the United Kingdom that we shall play our part in preventing those power stations from coming into operation." I shall remind the parliamentary Labour candidate in my constituency, Ian Cawsey, who will have to live with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley, that he has had yet another millstone strung around his neck. It was bad enough when the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that if the Labour party won the next election it would abandon the Immingham docks project. Now it wants to kill the jobs at Killingholme after the power stations have been built.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman said that last year planning permission for the two power stations was granted by the Department of Energy without debate. I believe that that was wrong. Would the hon. Gentleman set about building a four-bedroomed detached house without planning permission?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy gave National Power and PowerGen permission to build the power stations, subject to their obtaining planning permission. National Power and PowerGen went to Glanford borough council and Humberside county council and said, "The Secretary of State for Energy has allowed us to bring this project to you. Will you give us planning permission?" As it is a very go-ahead planning authority, Glanford borough council gave planning permission. There was no objection. I do not think that even a whisper against planning permission being granted


came from the two Labour councillors out of a total of 42 councillors. I believe that they voted for the project. The Labour-controlled Humberside county council—I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is present as his brother is the leader of the Conservative group on that council—also gave planning permission for the stations. The hon. Member for Rother Valley says that no planning permission was given. Both Glanford borough council and Humberside county council could have told the Secretary of State for Energy where to go after giving approval for the two power stations by denying planning permission, after which there would have had to be an appeal. However, they gave planning permission.

Mr. Barron: Is not planning permission being sought by means of the Bill?

Mr. Brown: Planning permission for the power stations is not the subject of the Bill. The power stations are being built after planning permission was granted by Glanford borough council. One of the power stations will be completed later this year. Planning permission was given for it. The Bill merely enables the power stations to take water out of the river Humber for cooling purposes.
I cannot believe what I am hearing from the Opposition —though perhaps I should, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Labour party believes only in coal, regardless of its price and of how expensive it is for the consumer. The Labour party believes that when the housewife switches on the electric light she ought to pay the price of electricity generated by coal, however high that price may be. That is what the debate is about. The hon. Member for Rother Valley let the cat out of the bag when he said, in effect, "I don't care whether you build nuclear, oil-fired or gas-fired power stations—all I want is for the consumer in this country to be forced to buy electricity at whatever price the coal miner and the coal industry choose to foist upon him."

Mr. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman misleads the House by suggesting that the Labour party wants electricity to be generated by coal, regardless of other means of electricity generation, but alternative means of electricity generation would deprive my constituents of employment.

Mr. Brown: When it comes to any other product, where constituency interests are not involved, competition and price are the determining factors. If the hon. Gentleman had the misfortune, in his case—though the good fortune in my case—to represent a constituency in which the largest single industry was privately run and where there was competition, he would find that Scunthorpe's steel industry had to face both international and domestic competition and therefore had to become efficient. At the moment the hon. Gentleman has the good fortune to represent a constituency where the largest industry has a monopoly. He wants that monopoly to be maintained, but by defending and upholding that monopoly he does his constituents a disservice in the long run. If there is a mix of energy generation, with one fossil fuel having to compete with another, the coal industry will be able to defend itself far more effectively in the long run, and it will be much more commercially competitive.
Combined cycle gas turbine stations are cheaper and quicker to build than conventional coal-fired stations and are substantially more efficient. Gas is available at an

economically competitive price, and as these companies must now answer to a board of directors and to shareholders they would not be building these power stations if they were going to be inefficient or, ultimately, if there was not an opportunity to sell electricity at a cheaper rate.
Gas is in plentiful supply and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, has considerable environmental advantages over coal. When gas is burned in a combined cycle gas turbine station, about half the carbon dioxide, virtually no sulphur dioxide and a quarter of the nitrogen oxide emissions of a coal-fired station are produced. Therefore, on environmental grounds, my constituency will be at the forefront of producing cheap energy, with an environmental benefit to boot.

Mr. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the reduced environmental impact of gas-fired power stations. If that is correct, why did he oppose nuclear power, which has no environmental impact whatever?

Mr. Brown: In 1945, a couple of miles up the road from where I have lived for the past 12 years, 700 acres of land were purchased by the CEGB. The intention was always to use that land for a power station. In 1972, the House went so far as to pass a private Bill giving the CEGB permission to build a power station there. In the 1980s, I said to my constituents, "I oppose this area of land, on which a power station was to be built, being used as a nuclear dump." I also said that if we prevented it being used as a nuclear dump we would have to acknowledge that a power station was to be built on the site. On that basis, I give my full and total support to the Bill. The project will bring jobs to my constituency.
For some reason, the Labour party has got it in for my constituency. It does not like my constituents to have jobs or for them to benefit from reductions in unemployment. Whether it is power plants, port development or whatever, the Labour party does not like any development in my constituency. At the next election, the poor prospective Labour candidate will have a hard time trying to convince my voters that they should vote for him. They certainly will not do so because it would result in my constituency going back to the 17th century. I support the motion and compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on the way in which he introduced it.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I am a north-west Member of Parliament, but I am here to support the north-east.
I am pro-nuclear and declare an interest in that respect. I am not crying because the next power station will be driven by a gas turbine, and I am not unfair enough to say that these power stations should not have their cooling water. I wish to say something to the coal-mining interests in the House, because that is what many of the earlier speeches were about. As part of the commitment to British Coal, National Power is retrofitting flue gas desulphurisation plant at Drax power station in Yorkshire. Similarly, PowerGen has submitted consent applications for retrofitting at Ratcliffe on Soar in Nottingham and Ferrybridge C power station in Yorkshire. The availability of FGD plant at some of our coal-fired power stations will reduce the disadvantage of the relatively high sulphur content of British coal.
It appears that those two companies are committed to the coal industry, but technology has not been developed sufficiently for orders to be placed immediately for coal-fired power stations. We must get that technology right and therefore—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see that this has anything to do with the motion.

Mr. Dickens: If you had been in the Chamber earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have heard speech after speech on the coal industry and the effect that the motion will have on it. Following your direction, I shall leave that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) moved the motion well on behalf of National Power and PowerGen. The successor companies to the CEGB have almost completed the two power stations, but a water supply is required to cool them.
In the combined cycle gas turbine, gas is burned in gas turbines and the exhaust heat is used to heat steam to drive a steam turbine. The gas turbines and the steam turbine drive electrical generators. Steam from the turbine gives up its heat energy in the turbine as it expands and its temperature and pressure fall. When as much energy as practicable has been extracted from the steam, it is exhausted at low temperature and the pressure goes directly to a condenser. Cold water, in this case from the river Humber, is passed through the condenser and is used to condense the steam. The water produced is recirculated to the steam boiler and at all times is kept separate from the river water.
Whatever the form of power, whether it was coal fired, oil fired, gas fired or nuclear, it would still have to have cooling facilities. The short pipes into the river Humber would still be necessary. There will be no pollution. It is interesting to note that gas is cleaner than coal. The burning of gas produces no sulphur dioxide, which is a big advantage. A gas-fired power station emits a quarter of the nitrogen oxide and half the carbon dioxide of a coal-fired station. That is the advantage of the two power stations that are nearly completed.
It is important to recall that British Coal stands to gain long contracts from both those power giants. They are committed to the existing contracts until March 1993, and they will negotiate other contracts after March 1993 as long as British Coal produces coal at competitive rates. The way that British Coal is going at the moment, it has every chance of securing those contracts. Its performance is outstanding and I think that it is even surprising itself. [Interruption.] I have been passed a note telling me to speak for two hours. It does not really say that.

Mr. Buckley: Is the hon. Gentleman generating gas? This is known as the biggest gas house in the United Kingdom. By speaking for two hours, the hon. Gentleman would contribute to the supply.

Mr. Dickens: I may be speaking hot air, but these two power stations are very important to the people of the north-east, and especially Humberside.
We must remember that a power station must be justified. PowerGen and National Power, the successor companies to the CEGB, would not have forged ahead if the power stations had not been justified. It is a new world

now. The power stations must be competitive and the type of generation of power used must be justified. It will not matter if the power stations overproduce because the electricity companies have a statutory obligation to provide power on demand to industry and consumers to keep the lights burning. That was the will of Parliament. The companies have a duty to fulfil that obligation. To do so, they must make sure that power stations are built.
If there is any surplus, it can be fed into the national grid and used elsewhere. The climate in the north-east is more kind at times than it is perhaps in the north-west and the south. Vice-versa, the north-east can take advantage of the power fed into the national grid from other stations. The arrangement is sensible and the power stations are justified. It would be churlish of the Opposition to block the almost completed power stations for the sake of short intake and outlet water pipes to the river Humber. We have heard that there is no pollution involved. The water is kept absolutely separate. I cannot understand the position of Opposition Members, many of whom I have supported on other issues.
I was formerly commercial director of a coal-fired power station and the chairman of an oil company. I am now in the nuclear industry—an interest which I declared earlier. That is why I take such an interest in energy matters and why I have come here tonight to support the people of the north-east and allow them to have the power station which they so richly deserve and need. On that note, I hand over to other hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: We need to go back to basics in discussing this revival motion. It is obvious from the speeches made by Opposition Members that they have not read the Bill. Nowhere does it mention planning permission or the type of power station. It is simply a Bill to change the wording of the 1972 Act which prescribes pipes of a certain length to the Humber. The Bill simply seeks to replace that length of pipe with shorter pipes to supply the cooling water to the gas generators.
Several points were raised by Opposition Members. The environment and clean coal were mentioned. Hon. Members may be interested in some of the figures on the so-called environmental benefits. Existing coal-burning stations, with 38 per cent. efficiency, pump 125 per cent. more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a combined cycle gas turbine plant—the type proposed at Killingholme—which has a 50 per cent. efficiency burn and only a 100 per cent. output of carbon dioxide.
The so-called benefits of flue gas desulphurisation have been mentioned. Drax, a 4,000 MW power station, will produce 1·1 million tonnes of gypsum. It needs 0·7 million tonnes of limestone for the process. The limestone comes from Derbyshire and 0·7 million tonnes of it represents about 35,000 lorries with a 20-tonne load crossing from Derbyshire to Drax. That is 673 a week or about 96 a day. If Labour Members believe that those are the benefits of flue gas desulphurisation, I suggest that they examine the problem a little more closely.
The Bill is simple. It is about changing the wording of the 1972 Act to allow new pipes to take in water. The power stations have planning permission. There is no local


opposition to them and, in the case of the PowerGen site, work has already started. We should vote for the revival motion without further ado.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 61.

Division No. 35]
[8.44 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hunter, Andrew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Irvine, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Jack, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Janman, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Jessel, Toby


Boswell, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bottomley, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bowis, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brazier, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Butler, Chris
Knox, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Carttiss, Michael
Maclean, David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Mans, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Mills, Iain



Monro, Sir Hector


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Colvin, Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Conway, Derek
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholls, Patrick


Cormack, Patrick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Norris, Steve


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Page, Richard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Paice, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Patnick, Irvine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fallon, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Speed, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Franks, Cecil
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Fry, Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Gale, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Thorne, Neil


Goodlad, Alastair
Thurnham, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Viggers, Peter


Hague, William
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Wheeler, Sir John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hampson, Dr Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Yeo, Tim


Harris, David



Heathcoat-Amory, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Malcolm Moss and


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mr. Michael Brown.





NOES


Allen, Graham
Haynes, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hood, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bellotti, David
Ingram, Adam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kennedy, Charles


Blunkett, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Buckley, George J.
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McCartney, Ian


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clay, Bob
Maxton, John


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michael, Alun


Cousins, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Crowther, Stan
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cummings, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Redmond, Martin


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Rooney, Terence


Dixon, Don
Short, Clare


Dobson, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alexander
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Spearing, Nigel


Fatchett, Derek
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Fisher, Mark
Turner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Foulkes, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Godman, Dr Norman A.



Golding, Mrs Llin
Tellers for the Noes:


Grocott, Bruce
Ms. Dawn Primarolo and


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That, since no Petitions remain against the Bill, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Overseas Development and Co-operation

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft International Development Association (Ninth Replenishment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we debate with this the motion on the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1990.

Mrs. Chalker: The purpose of the first of these orders is to authorise a contribution of £619 million to the ninth replenishment of the International Development Association, known as IDA. This is the second biggest single commitment from our aid programme after our contribution to the seventh European development fund. We have a high regard for the World bank, of which IDA is a part. It plays a key role in the development process and the United Kingdom has been a firm supporter of IDA since its inception. IDA is by far the world's biggest provider of concessionary finance to developing countries. In the year to June 1990 IDA lending totalled !5·5 billion and in the same period the World bank approved loans totalling just over !15 billion.
IDA was set up in 1960 when it became clear that many countries were too poor to take on conventional World bank loans, which are on quasi-commercial terms. Because IDA terms are highly concessional, it is funded mainly by donors' contributions and not, as with the World bank, by borrowing on the financial markets. But IDA reflows—repayments of earlier loans that go back into the pot to help finance new ones—are becoming an increasingly important supplementary source of funds.
The World bank's goal is to promote economic progress among its borrowers so that they are fully able to turn to the world's financial markets to meet their needs. IDA, in turn, aims to bring its borrowers to the point where their needs can be met by the bank. Many countries have benefited in this way over the years. Former recipients that have graduated out of IDA as their economies have strengthened include Korea, Turkey, Thailand and Ecuador. However, most of the poorest countries of Africa and Asia continue to need substantial and highly concessional aid flows for many years to come. IDA has a key role to play in their development.
IDA resources are also significant for so-called "blend" countries that receive a mix of World bank loans on normal and concessional terms. Such countries include India, Pakistan, China and Nigeria.
Our aid programme is targeted to help achieve sustainable economic and social progress, especially in the poorest countries. Channelling funds through IDA, in collaboration with other donors, is an effective mechanism to advance that policy. At the same time, our substantial and effective bilateral aid programme is focused on the poorest countries. Thus, the funds channelled bilaterally and through IDA are mutually supportive of our central policy objectives.
IDA loans are used mostly for specific projects or programmes within individual countries. In recent years, however, a proportion of IDA resources has been used for non-project lending, mainly structural and sectoral

adjustment loans. Adjustment lending of this kind provides vital foreign exchange to help finance essential imports needed to implement economic reform programmes agreed with the international donor community. As the process of adjustment proceeds, we should see a decline in the need to use concessional aid for general balance of payments support. The need will continue, of course, for sector investment and project lending to help sustain the growth that reform programmes are aiming to achieve. Up to 30 per cent. of IDA9 resources may be used for non-project lending, but the impact of the Gulf crisis will almost certainly intensify the need for adjustment efforts in many developing countries.
Our new obligation to IDA is set out fully in the White Paper, CM 1325, but it may be helpful if I comment briefly on the main features. The size and terms of such replenishments are determined through intergovernmental negotiation among interested donor countries. A total of 11·7 billion special drawing rights—about !15 billion—was agreed. Adding in the recycling of repayments on earlier loans, IDA should be able to achieve a lending programme of more than !17 billion over the three years of the replenishment. That is a much better result than we thought possible at the outset and represents a real increase over IDA8. The United Kingdom will contribute 6·7 per cent. of this total—the same share as last time. At the agreed rate of exchange, that means a United Kingdom contribution of £619 million.
We shall pay this sum to IDA by depositing three promissory notes, for equal amounts, over three years from 1990. Those will then be encashed over a longer period, to match spending incurred by IDA as a result of its commitments during the replenishment period. The costs of encashment will be met as they occur, from sums voted for overseas aid.
During the negotiations donors reviewed several policy issues. They underlined the importance of poverty reduction as IDA's central concern, and agreed that greater emphasis should be given to people and their environment. We warmly welcome this. Development will not happen if people remain uneducated and unhealthy and with insufficient access to resources. Development will not be sustainable if we do not take steps to protect our environment. The United Kingdom laid special emphasis on those issues during the negotiations and took the lead in urging the bank to do more to help with the revised tropical forestry action plan. I am also particularly pleased that more attention is to be devoted to trying to bring down the rate of population growth: a better life for all is just not possible if economic growth is outstripped by the growth in population. The prospects for sustainable development are greatly diminished when over-population leads, as it so often does, to environmental degradation.
Donors were also insistent that IDA resources must be used effectively, and that country performance should be an increasingly important factor. Again, we welcome that emphasis. We, the lenders, need to ask whether Government or public institutions are properly addressing the country's needs. Sound economic management, broadly based development, including the reduction of poverty and real efforts towards sustainable long-term developments, are all critical—in other words, good, effective government.
Many donors are above all concerned that IDA resources should be directed towards the poorest countries, particularly in Africa. In IDA8, it was agreed


that up to 50 per cent. of the replenishment should go to Africa. The same share will be kept for IDA9, which I welcome. We are pleased that the needs of the large developing countries in Asia have also been recognised, but it is Africa which continues to face exceptional difficulties. The recurrence of the threat of widespread famine is but one facet of that.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said in a news release that I received today, the Gulf crisis is not hindering our famine relief efforts in Africa. Every time that Saddam Hussein refuses to withdraw from Kuwait, developing countries dependent on oil and facing increased oil prices are affected. However, I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that we are ready and prepared, and have made provision to maintain our relief programmes without interruption, come what may in the Gulf. That is extremely important.
Another difficulty is the need for economic reform and adjustment in Africa—a fact which is recognised by an increasing number of countries on the continent. The World bank has taken the lead in providing balance of payments assistance for countries prepared to adopt the necessary policy reforms. We strongly support those reform programmes and we have provided funds on grant terms from our bilateral aid programme to supplement IDA resources in such cases. Indeed, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of international efforts to increase resources available to support economic reform in the low-income, debt-distressed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Under the first stage of the special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa donors pledged a total of !6·3 billion of aid in addition to the finance available from the World bank and the IMF. That special programme is a World bank-led effort to ensure well co-ordinated financial support for the import requirements of economic reform programmes. For our part, we pledged up to £250 million of British bilateral programme aid over the three years of the special programme; that pledge has been fulfilled. A second three-year phase of the special programme has now been agreed and I am aiming to make available at least the same amount of bilateral support.
Measures have also been adopted—the "Toronto terms"—to ease the burden of debt on the poorest countries, mainly in Africa, undertaking economic adjustment. Those measures were first proposed by the United Kingdom. Nineteen countries have already benefited. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, while he was Chancellor, proposed ways of further easing the burden—the "Trinidad proposals". Those would involve a reduction of two thirds—!18 billion—in the stock of debt of the poorest countries. We are now seeking to persuade other creditor countries to accept those proposals.
I referred earlier to the effects of the Gulf crisis, which for most developing countries are severe. Apart from the increase in oil prices, many of those countries are suffering in other ways, notably from the loss of remittances from expatriate workers, plus the problems of reabsorbing those workers into their home economies. Many IDA recipients are seriously affected and will require extra help in this financial year, and beyond. Some countries with average incomes just above the normal upper limit for IDA are amongst those worst hit, and the bank hopes to be able to offer some IDA assistance to several of those latter countries, too. Indeed, it is because the bank is anxious to start helping as soon as possible, and because our

agreement to contribute is expected to trigger IDA9's effectiveness, enabling the replenishment to be committed, that we are having this debate rather earlier than has tended to be the case in the past.
The extra assistance will come from a variety of sources, mainly by accelerated use of donor commitments both to IDA9 and to earlier replenishments that are not fully paid up and by voluntary contributions from donors. We expect to be able to help the former. We fully support IDA's central aim of alleviating poverty and its concentration of resources in key areas, especially in agricultural and rural development and in energy.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend tell us something about how we are responding to the famine in Ethiopia and Sudan and the extent to which the programme that she has identified and on which I congratulate her—she has done a tremendous job—will help to alleviate the immediate problem which is receiving so much attention in our press and elsewhere in the world?

Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. He will know that on 19 December I made a statement to the House announcing an extra £5 million for Ethiopia and Sudan on top of the £56 million spent in 1989 and in 1990 up to that date. I shall visit Ethiopia, all being well, at the end of this month to make a further assessment and to hold discussions with the Government and the relief organisations so that we can work out what further help may be necessary.
Unfortunately, because of the situation in Sudan it will not be possible for me to visit it, but I am in close touch with the non-governmental organisations, which are continuing, despite the pressures that they are under, to do such magnificent work there. We are receiving regular feedback of information on which we shall base future decisions. It will be very much harder to help Sudan, for the awful reason that its Government will not admit to the crisis or to the extent of the famine, and it is possible that they will not allow the food to go to the people who are starving.
As for Ethiopia, I can tell the House today that what was only a hope on 19 December has come to pass, and Massawa port has been opened. The first United Nations shipload of food has gone from Djibouti to that port and has been checked by both sides—by the Ethiopian Government and by the liberation forces. The food is now on its way to Eritrea. We hope that that project will continue well. The southern line is still being used, with food going in from the port of Assab up to Dese and being offloaded on to World Food Programme and other voluntary organisations' lorries to go to northern Wollo and Tigray. The airlift into Asmara has been working and I have put aside more money for it.
Unfortunately, it has been reported to us in the past couple of days that the airport at Asmara has been shelled by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. We sincerely hope that the shelling will cease and that we shall continue to be able to use Asmara for the airlift at least for the rest of this month, until the running of the boat from Djibouti to Massawa port provides a regular flow of food into Eritrea and northern Tigray. I trust that that brings my hon. Friend up to date—

Sir David Steel: May I press the Minister while she is still on this important topic? Can she give the House any information on what is happening in Somalia, given the chaos there?

Mrs. Chalker: Somalia is a very sad case. Sad to say, we have had to withdraw our staff and advise aid agencies to withdraw, too. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman up-to-date information at this moment. There is food in the country, but it is bound to run out because while fighting is going on it will not be possible to get it from the point of entry to where the people need it. I am glad to say that our ambassador arrived back in this country safely today; when I have had a chance to talk to him later this week I shall try to put down on paper for the right hon. Gentleman what is happening in Somalia.
I welcome comments made by right hon. and hon. Members about the problems of Africa, because IDA9 will be much concerned with the needs of Africa. One of the critical aspects of the International Development Association is its central aim of alleviating poverty. I am delighted that it is concentrating its resources in key areas such as agriculture, rural development and energy. It is making welcome efforts to tackle the problems of the poorest and especially the poorer, indebted African countries. We also welcome the IDA's role in improving the co-ordination of aid from all sources.
The second order for which we seek parliamentary approval relates to a much smaller but none the less important exclusively regional institution. The purpose of the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1990 is to provide for an additional subscription not exceeding US !20·9 million to the capital stock of that bank. Britain and Canada were the two non-regional founding members of the CDB and are the largest non-regional shareholders, with 10·44 per cent. each. Over the years we have given the CDB strong support, providing encouragement and guidance as well as technical and financial assistance.
The bank was set up in 1970 to promote economic and social growth in the Caribbean region. There is a hard lending window through which the bank borrows on the international financial markets on the security of capital stock. There is also a soft fund, a special development fund, whose resources are lent on concessional terms mainly to the poorer countries in the region or to those with special difficulties. At its last annual meeting in May the board of governors approved a capital increase of US !200 million of which !40 million will be paid in. The United Kingdom share is the 10·44 per cent. that I mentioned, or US !20·9 million. Of that sum, US !4·2 million will be paid in, equivalent to £2·2 million at the current rate of exchange. Payments will be phased over a number of years.
The CDB is one of the leading regional institutions in the Commonwealth Caribbean. It operates almost entirely with personnel drawn from the region and provides the focus for encouragement and retention of local skills. Its small size and restricted membership and the great disparity in wealth between its borrowing members impose constraints on its operations. We have encouraged the bank's management to improve the efficiency of its operations and not attempt too much. Last year the World bank approved a loan to the CDB for on-lending to smaller Caribbean countries. The World bank's assessment was that, although the CDB has made considerable

progress in strengthening its operational and organisational procedures, some institutional weaknesses remained. Therefore, the World bank loan has a strong institution building emphasis which we welcome.
The World bank is the leading development institution and it is at the cutting edge of change for improvement in the social and economic conditions in developing countries. Successive British Governments have supported the World bank group, which includes the International Development Association, and our commitment is as firm as ever. The CDB also plays a valuable role in its region.
I commend both orders authorising additional contributions to these institutions.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As the Minister says, the World bank may be a leading development institution, but unfortunately it has an appalling record of funding disastrous projects and of forcing developing countries to restructure their economies so that they have to use their resources to pay their debt. It is focused on economic growth and not on people and the quality of their lives. Recently there have been signs of change. Last year, in its first report on poverty in 10 years, it recommended strategies to alleviate poverty.
The bank also appears to be developing an environmental consciousness. Both the IMF and the World bank have begun talking about taking into account how well Governments serve their people, rather than just the creditors, and are looking at—and frowning on—excessive military expenditure. These changes should be welcomed and encouraged, but we have heard words about the poor from the bank before, and nothing has changed.
Will there be a genuine shift this time? What will the Government do to monitor future bank lending? How do they propose that the bank should implement its new poverty focus? The Government have adopted a passive and complacent role, supporting both United States and World bank ideology. They have defended the bank's record, but with little debate on the issues involved. In what direction do the Government think that the bank should be going? What position was put forward by the United Kingdom executive director in recent debates on bank policy?
The three priority areas identified for IDA9 are poverty reduction, support for sound economic policies and the environment. Have the Government reviewed past policies and recommended changes for the future? How does United Kingdom aid policy fit in with the new bank priorities? What changes in policy are the Government planning? What factors determine the level of United Kingdom contribution to IDA9 and the decision not to make supplementary contributions? The answer seems to be that, as usual, the Overseas Development Administration is muddling along with no clear policy or decisions, supporting a bit of everything. The Government's attitude to the world development report on poverty provides a clear example. The two-pronged strategy for the poor—labour-intensive growth combined with investment in health and education and a safety net for the poorest—marks a significant and important change in World bank thinking, and should be welcomed.
Like the ODA, the bank has focused on structural adjustment, earning foreign exchange and paying debts to


the exclusion of all else. The newly announced policies should be welcomed as a significant change. Then, every ounce of political pressure must be put into ensuring that the new policies are translated into actions, and reforming United Kingdom bilateral policies to the same end. Unfortunately, the Government have hardly acknowledged the shift by the bank. Far from pledging that the United Kingdom will now focus on poverty alleviation strategies, the Minister conveniently gives the impression that all is in hand, that no change is needed, and that we can sit back and do nothing new.
Can the Minister, in all honesty, be so complacent? We are talking about whether 300 million people can climb out of poverty by the year 2000. We are talking about the lives or deaths of millions of children. We are talking about whether Governments in the north and south will take these extra steps and make these extra efforts for the quarter of the world's population living in poverty. Why does the Minister continue to give anodyne answers about all aid and growth benefiting the poor? She should admit instead that the bank and the ODA were wrong. Growth simply does not trickle down to the poorest. Structural adjustment in the 1980s has not solved the economic crisis. More than 1 billion people live in dire poverty and it is time to focus our best efforts on them.
What is needed in the 1990s is economic adjustment which redirects resources to the poor and invests in people, along with large flows of concessional funds, debt reduction and better trade. The recommendation that a Government's commitment to poverty reduction be one of the main performance criteria deciding the allocation of IDA resources has major implications. Just how much weight will be given to this?
The Labour party would be delighted to see international funds focused on Governments with a genuine commitment to helping their citizens. Are the Government willing to back up that policy? Perhaps the Government will tell us whether United Kingdom aid policy will change in line with the bank's new thinking. I understand that the bank has issued a handbook on implementing the new poverty emphasis. I wonder whether it has been issued to the staff of the Overseas Development Administration.
The bank projects that the number of people living in poverty in Africa could increase by up to 100 million. It notes that with an extraordinary effort by donors and Governments that increase could be avoided. The bank's report on Africa in October 1989 entitled, "From Crisis to Sustainable Growth", laid out a strategic agenda for donors and Governments and called for a doubling of spending on the development of human resources. It called the target of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. annual growth in Africa "ambitious but achievable" if donors increase aid by 4 per cent. per year in real terms to reach !22 billion at today's prices by the year 2000. Can the Minister explain how, with an aid budget planned to stagnate in real terms, the United Kingdom will play its part?
The report on sub-Saharan Africa was not a one-off shot in the dark. The conference, which was organised by the Dutch Government, began by building a consensus around the report. Who represented the United Kingdom at that conference and what views did they contribute? Are the Government supporting the movement for a new global coalition or are they, as I suspect, dragging their feet?
The special needs of Africa for concessional flows have been recognised by the bank in the form of a special programme of assistance. There is now agreement that Africa needs more aid and more debt relief, but what is being done to secure it? The bank is funding a debt reduction facility to buy up the commercial debt of the poorest countries. Those are the IDA-only countries. The overhang of commercial debt is small but weighty because it inhibits new private investment and trade. Removing it is relatively easy, but vital. Just as damaging is the debt owed to the multilateral institutions. Sub-Saharan Africa owes more than !20 billion to the World bank and last year it handed over !1·5 billion in debt servicing. How can the bank possibly promote labour-intensive growth strategies and investment in the poor when the money that it puts in comes straight out in debt repayment?
Sub-Saharan Africa owes !20 billion to the IDA and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The new policies being promoted in Washington cannot be realised until the contradiction is resolved; yet we have heard little from the Government about reducing multilateral debt. Debt undermines everything else. Bank loans still stress the importance of exports to earn foreign exchange to pay for debt servicing. Export promotion often means huge capital-intensive and energy-intensive projects. That means less money for investing in the poor, and more huge dams and power stations which displace people and destroy the environment.
The Minister implies that the United Kingdom is active in the World bank but prefers to keep quiet about the powerful muscles that are stretched behind the scenes. If the United Kingdom has been willing to stand up to the bank, how is it that millions of dollars have been spent on projects which have left hundreds of thousands of people homeless and decimated so many acres of agricultural land?
Why is it that the Sardar Sarovar dam in India is still going ahead after five years of bitter controversy? Total World bank funding is !450 million, of which !250 million is from the IDA. The project will submerge 13,744 hectares of forest and 11,318 hectares of valuable agricultural land. Ninety thousand people will be displaced—yet, six years into the project, no adequate resettlement plans exist. Crucial environmental studies were not undertaken at the beginning, and World bank policy on involuntary settlement has been broken. Even basic information about the project was kept from those threatened by the dam. Thousands of "oustees" have made peaceful demonstrations, and Indian non-governmental organisations have adopted a policy of peaceful non-co-operation, calling for the project to be scrapped. Several Indian Government officials now agree that the plans should be reviewed. Members of parliaments all around the world have called on the bank to cancel the project.
The World bank responded by sending more missions and by laying conditions on the Indian Government, but in most cases it has acted too late, or has ignored the recommendations of its own staff to suspend the loan. In July 1990, credit was extended for a further year on condition that satisfactory progress was made with its conditions for improved resettlement plans. However, land has still not been found to resettle 90,000 people.
Can the Minister explain why that disastrous loan has not been suspended? Of course developing countries need energy to develop their economies, and it would be wrong


to block projects which can benefit the poor because we in the northern hemisphere have abused the environment and are not prepared ourselves to end harmful practices. However, the projects in question do nothing to help the poor, but devastate their lives instead.
There is an alternative to that madness. Mega-disasters such as Sardar Sarovar need never have happened if the World bank had considered energy conservation properly. Research in America by the Environmental Defence Fund shows that if, instead of investing !1·5 billion in Sardar Sarovar, a smaller investment had been made in conservation measures—including high-efficiency motors and fluorescent lighting—that would have produced three times as much electricity. However, it is clear from World bank appraisals of that project that energy and irrigation alternatives were not adequately reviewed.
What are the irrigation alternatives? Of 246 large-scale projects begun in India since 1951, 181 are still incomplete. Some are World bank projects. Instead of sinking funds into new dams, why does the bank not review incomplete projects and finish those which are environmentally and socially sound? At the same time, the bank would do well to switch to small-scale irrigation projects which directly serve and involve local communities. Sardar Sarovar is just one example. Throughout the world, 70 projects funded by the World bank, and many IDA-funded projects, are displacing 1·5 million people; yet the bank cannot document one case in which a displaced population is not worse off than before.
Energy sector lending has become the World bank's biggest sector in recent years, accounting for up to one fifth of all loans. However, only 3 per cent. of energy and industrial sector lending has gone into inducing energy efficiency improvements in the past 10 years. In India, not one dollar of the !8·5 billion spent on the energy sector has gone into improving the efficiency with which energy is consumed. The economic benefits of energy conservation are clear. The World bank's own study suggested that conservation measures saving 20 per cent. of commercial energy used in the developing world would amount to about !30 billion per annum of total government savings, which is equivalent to about two thirds of total aid flows. It is equivalent to 60 per cent. of the net flow of resources from poor to rich due to debt servicing. Recent announcements that the bank will increase its support for energy efficiency and the recommendations on that in the IDA9 agreement are greatly welcomed. However, will the Government carefully monitor whether lending is indeed focused upon renewable energy, energy efficiency and least-cost planning from now on? A radical switch in priorities is an economic and environmental necessity.
The new IDA9 agreement contains unprecedented language on many environmental aspects of its work, and that is very much to be welcomed. It is good to see references, at last, to increased public access to information on IDA projects and programmes, public participation in IDA projects, and improvement and implementation of the bank's operational directive on environmental impact assessments. However, the bank still has a long way to go. It first announced its environmental reforms and the creation of an environmental department in 1987, but examination of projects since then shows that the hoped-for improvement in the bank's

policies, especially regarding tribal people and forced resettlement, has not materialised. The goals and guidelines are there, but they have not been incorporated into the bank's operations.
The central environmental department has been marginalised as the 1987–88 reorganisation decentralised decisions to regions, while the four environmental units in the regional offices are hampered by lack of authority and small budgets. The operational directive on environmental assessment encourages, but does not require, public involvement in the process of drawing up environmental impact assessments. It states that the need for environmental impact assessments should be considered, not that it must be done, and it explicitly includes non-project and structural adjustment lending from environmental improvement assessments.
Can the Minister assure the House today that work is under way to ensure that the new environmental language in IDA9 is implemented? Can she report any evidence that the bank is making environmental assessments available to the public, carrying out environmental impact assessments in all necessary cases and involving the people most affected by projects?
The news that the World bank is to triple funding for forestry is worrying, given the bank's previous forestry record and the decision to channel those funds through the tropical forestry action plan. So far, TFAP has promoted commercial forestry and ignored the needs of indigenous people who rely upon the forests, and last year's review process has not solved that problem. For example, one of the first projects to be funded by the bank is a !23 million forestry and fisheries project in Guinea. In fact, it is a deforestation scheme, paying for the construction of 45 miles of road in or around two humid forest reserves totalling 150,000 hectares, two thirds of which are pristine forest, of which two thirds will be opened up for timber production. Just as the Government should refuse to channel funds through the TFAP mechanism until comprehensive reviews are in place, so should the World bank.
The Minister mentioned the effects of the Gulf crisis, and the level of replenishment of IDA9 more than maintains the real value of IDA8. That is also to be welcomed if the reforms are implemented and the money is well spent on genuine development. However, there is no doubt about the enormous need for concessional funds in developing countries, and the Gulf crisis has certainly exacerbated the situation.
The oil price rise is devastating third-world countries. In Mozambique, one of the five countries hit by famine, flights of food supplies have been cancelled because fuel costs are too great. In this context, I was glad to hear the Minister say that the increased costs would not hamper famine relief for Ethiopia, the Sudan, Angola and Liberia.
According to United Nations economists, the world's poorest countries will have to find an extra !32 billion for oil this year. Already crippled by debt repayments, they simply cannot afford to buy the oil to keep their economies going. At the same time, many developing countries have lost a vital source of foreign exchange as their nationals have had to flee home from the Gulf. Before the invasion, one third of Bangladesh's foreign exchange earnings came from workers in the Gulf; now Bangladesh has not only lost vital earnings, but has had to cope with transporting and supporting thousands of refugees.
The crisis has already cost African nations !2 billion last year. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka lost more than !2·5 billion. All four import oil, had strong trade links with Iraq and Kuwait, and depended on remittances from thousands of citizens working in the Gulf.
Under article 50 of the United Nations charter, countries affected by United Nations actions can claim compensation, but the United Nations' has no budget allocation with which to pay them. Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are receiving aid in partial compensation for the enormous toll that sanctions take on their economy, but the poorest nations, which are devastated by the oil price rise, have received nothing. The Government should work with others to set up a United Nations' fund to finance article 50. Without that, those least able to pay will bear the costs of the crisis.
Finally, I must say a few words about the Caribbean development bank. Like other regions, the Caribbean needs aid and capital flows, but debt and the Gulf crisis are taking their toll there as well. The current oil crisis means that Jamaica will have to pay an extra !50 million each year for its oil imports. Uncertainty over the Gulf, combined with recession in the United States and Canada, is already hitting the tourist trade, a major source of foreign exchange. Jamaica is one of the most indebted countries in the world—its !4·5 billion debt represents !1,800 for every man, woman and child on the island while gross national product is just !1,200 per person. A hefty proportion of the debt is owed to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. Along with bilateral donors, those official agencies are now taking more out of Jamaica than they are putting in through new loans. Not surprisingly, research shows that one third of Jamaicans are unable to feed themselves adequately. The Jamaican Government want to invest in health and education, but under IMF auspices the percentage of public spending devoted to those essentials has declined.
The need for the Caribbean countries to develop and diversify their export base has long been recognised. Continued dependence on goods such as bananas could be crippling after 1992. Not enough thought is yet being given to the impact of the European single market on developing countries. The various mechanisms, such as the Lome convention and the United States Caribbean basin initiative, have not brought about sustained export growth in new sectors. The Caribbean development bank must support the continued effort for export diversification. For the British dependencies, the Caribbean development bank provides a valuable link with multilateral funds to which they would not otherwise have access.
I welcome both the orders, although I enter a caveat in regard to the Caribbean development bank. That part of the world needs every possible form of help if it is to overcome the major structural problems that exist in the region as a whole.

Mr. Jim Lester: At the end of her speech the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that she welcomed both orders. Until that point I felt that much of her curmudgeonly criticism implied that she did not. I am glad that she does. All those hon. Members who take an interest in the third world, and poverty in particular, have a very soft spot for the International Development

Association and its work. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said in her speech, IDA has played an increasingly important co-ordinating role in terms of both bilateral aid and major World bank aid. The fact that IDA lends on such advantageous concessionary terms—even down to no interest at all—means that it is one of the most effective ways to lend money without causing an increasing debt problem.
In recent years there has been a convergence of thought about the transfer of resources to the developing world. That convergence is to be seen in the World bank and other United Nations agencies, but it is seen in its most welcome form in the South-South report that was compiled by the third world. Many of its recommendations repeat exactly the same conditions as are laid down by IDA and the United Nations Development Programme. That convergence ought to allow us to be more forthright in supporting the ninth replenishment order.
My right hon. Friend suggested that the order deals sensitively with the principal issues and concentrates on those that cause us most concern. Poverty, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, is one of the most difficult problems to overcome, not because of the World bank's original policy and our own bilateral aid but partly because of the way in which such matters are dealt with by various Governments. For example, the Government of the Sudan do not consider that all the poor people in their country are part of the system. It is difficult, therefore, to offer aid that will provide long-term assistance for the poorest people in the Sudan and similar countries. Their Governments do not recognise the existence of poor people.
When the amount of money needed for replenishment was debated, the problems in the Gulf had not arisen. Those of us who have travelled recently in developing countries know that the prospect of an increase in the price of oil, particularly in those countries that depend on the Soviet Union for their oil supplies at subsidised rates, causes dread. My right hon. Friend ought to keep that point very much in mind. Part of IDA's funds is used for essential imports. For many countries, their most essential import is oil. After the order has been approved, a further statement ought to be made about our intentions if we are to solve the oil problem for these countries in a co-ordinated and helpful way.
I welcome the statement that 45 to 50 per cent. of IDA's funds should continue to be given to Africa. Despite the bad news in the Horn of Africa—Somalia, Ethiopia and the Sudan—many of us believe that welcome changes are being made in Mozambique. It is also possible that the civil war in Angola will come to an end, which is to be welcomed, as is the prospect of the end of apartheid in South Africa. During the next three years there is the potential for pump-priming assistance to be given to those countries in Africa, such as Mozambique and Angola, that have tremendous national resources. All they need is peace and the opportunity to concentrate on their own future. Aid in the form of pump priming would be paid back a hundredfold in terms of the relief of poverty, particularly in Mozambique, the poorest country in the world yet the one with the most tremendous development potential.
Those who think much about Africa recognise that, far from being in the third world, some African countries


could slip into the fourth world and way below anything that we have seen so far. We want to maintain and ensure the commitment of the ninth replenishment.
I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Trinidad terms—we seem to be debating all the "Ts"—and the Toronto terms for debt relief. I hope that the new Chancellor will pursue this with the same enthusiasm as his predecessor. We must act quickly if we are to fulfil the conditions and rules by which we approve both orders.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). My hon. Friend showed that we have come a long way since the earliest days of International Development Association concession funding. Perhaps the hon. Lady did not realise quite what a change there has been: one certainly would not have thought so from her remarks tonight.
The hon. Lady asked about the poverty focus of our aid programme. I stressed our efforts, through IDA and World bank loans, to focus on poverty. More than 80 per cent. of our bilateral programme is focused on countries with a gross national product per head of less than !700. We target the poorest developing countries by encouraging and supporting economic reform programmes. We need to help them to stimulate their own growth, which is critical to their long-term success. We try to ensure that their reform programmes take into account the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable so that they are safeguarded. That is part of the general approach of the World bank, and certainly of the IDA programmes.
A further way by which we seek to help under our programmes is direct poverty alleviation, which in India alone amounts to more than £130 million worth of commitments from the British aid programme. There is much going on under the British aid programme, let alone under the enhanced focus of the World bank, which we have been in the forefront of encouraging.
The hon. Lady sought to say that we do not do very much and used that awful word "complacent". My goodness, I shall never be complacent while there are mouths to feed and people who need help in the third world, let alone in our own country. She does not realise that sometimes one must work for a long time to get something as well focused as the ninth replenishment of IDA. The World bank has come a long way in the past two or three years. The hon. Lady need have no fear, because through our executive director in Washington we shall continue to play the fullest possible role in the decisions of the bank. That is why we ensure that we are represented at all the international meetings, including the one in the Netherlands on Africa. That was not a World bank meeting but a mixture of many of us who are thoroughly involved in the development needs of Africa and the third world. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but it was attended by my deputy secretary. I received a good report, and I have been in touch with my Dutch opposite number to get as much as one can from the meeting without being there in person.
The hon. Lady said that the World bank was not paying enough attention to people and poverty. I could tell her at length—I will not do so because I know that she is tired after returning from the far east—what has been going on.
I was glad that the hon. Lady welcomed the world development report. We also welcomed it. The board of the World bank will give special consideration to how to deal with poverty through all its projects later this month. That is a result partly of the discussions that we have had about the IDA replenishment and partly of the general emphasis which is now placed on poverty alleviation. The board of the World bank is doing exactly what the hon. Lady criticised it for failing to do. I assure her that we shall press it to continue to take the matter seriously.
The hon. Lady said that the World bank handbook had been issued. I believe that it has not yet been issued, but if it contains anything from which we could learn or which we could utilise, we shall do so. We are not embarrassed about adopting good ideas wherever they come from, provided that they will work and can be helpful.
The hon. Lady went on to talk about debt relief, another subject on which we could have an entire debate. I shall not speak about it at length. Suffice it to say that the IDA has !100 million to help recipients to buy back commercial debt at a discount. The assistance is limited to !10 million for any one country. To qualify, countries must have a satisfactory adjustment programme, and debt management strategies. The assistance is in grant form —a fact which many people do not realise. Niger has had its operation approved and discussions on Bolivia and Mozambique are taking place. It is a modest facility and it can be used only in certain cases, but it will help many countries in the future.
IDA assistance is also available to countries with outstanding International Bank for Reconstruction and Development debts. Repayments of IDA credits are mostly committed in advance of the new lending. It would be imprudent to commit them in full as all the expected repayments may not be forthcoming. So 10 per cent. of the expected reflows each year are not committed in advance but are used to supplement IDA credits to IDA-only countries with IDA supported adjustment programmes which have outstanding World bank debts. Certainly the IDA is helping many countries in that position.
During the months that the hon. Lady and I have faced each other at the Dispatch Box, she has made several criticisms of the environmental aspects of World bank projects. She knows how keen I am to make sure that only environmentally sound projects are undertaken. In the past projects have been initiated which were subject to fair criticisms. But it is only a handful of projects, all of which are old ones which began before the World bank became aware of environmental issues.
The hon. Lady should remember that the bank's presence and the conditionality of the projects help to mitigate the damage. That must continue to be so. The bank is seeking to improve its performance and to make what improvements are possible to old projects. The various regional vice-presidencies, which are responsible for the country programmes, each have environmental units and if we found anything of the nature that the hon. Lady described we should take it up with them.
The hon. Lady mentioned one such project in detail. It would be sensible for me to write to her about it and put the letter in the Library. Often at the beginning of major projects an agreement is made that the recipient country


will safeguard the resettlement and rehabilitation of people who are displaced by a project which they fully support. If the World bank finds that that is not done, it is landed with a problem not of its own making but for which it is blamed even though the recipient Government did not carry through the original agreement.
In many cases that is at least part of the answer to the sorts of problem which the hon. Lady and I come across and which we wish not to see in future projects. In other words, we should seek to ensure that the World bank takes safeguards to ensure that the recipient country cannot fall down on the rehabilitation and resettlement of those whom it undertook to look after. Once that has happened, it is extremely difficult to put right. The bank is making considerable efforts to persuade the Indians to deal with resettlement on the projects which the hon. Lady mentioned. Unfortunately, it is taking a long time, but we shall see what can be done to assist.
I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady that energy projects should be energy efficient. She will know from previous debates that we are insisting on much more efficient use of energy in all our bilateral programmes. That is also becoming true for the World bank. If she comes across a project, whether a World bank project or, I hope not, even a bilateral project which she believes will not meet environmental or energy-efficient guidelines, I want her to tell me straight away so that I can do something about it. I hope that that will not happen, but if it does, let us at least avert the impending disaster that she perceives by acting on the first possible knowledge.
The hon. Lady also mentioned problems in forestry. She said that the World bank had supported several forestry projects which were less than sensible. It is unrealistic to expect logging simply to stop. I think that she knows that in her heart of hearts when she thinks about what it means. The bank has had problems with certain Governments who saw logging as a way of getting income. The bank has been seeking to persuade those Governments to log only sustainably managed forests. That must be how it should work in future.
Logging cannot be wholly eliminated. Indeed, forestry experts tell me that it should not be, but that it needs to be properly managed. I hope that the World bank will consult non-governmental organisations on projects to make sure that logging is from sustainably managed forests always and that indigenous people are given proper management training on how to maintain the forests.
The hon. Lady went on to say something about the Gulf crisis. I fully agree with her about the serious impact on many poor countries. There is a good chance that many of them, such as Jamaica, will get help from IDA. If there are adequate voluntary additional donor contributions that may be possible.
Many of the other aspects of our short debate on which the hon. Lady touched concern the Caribbean Development bank. Its work is interesting and exceptional. We have a programme in Jamaica where the

disbursements are likely to be in excess of £5 million this year. In the past 10 years, capital aid to Jamaica has been provided largely as programme aid in support of its structural adjustment programmes. The £7·5 million loan which we agreed three years ago is being used in part to provide textbooks in secondary schools. We have provided a further £3 million grant to assist with reconstruction after hurricane Gilbert in September 1988. A further grant of £7·5 million was agreed last April, of which £3 million of programme aid was in support of its latest economic recovery measures.
All donors find it takes time to identify sound projects, but when we do we can commit the loans that we have agreed to ensure that there is a full disbursement of the balances and that the grants are likely to continue as planned from the beginning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred to Africa as being one of the most needy continents, particularly at this time, and on that there will be no difference between any of us in this House. We must ensure that we spend our money wisely and efficiently in the best interests of those in need. We should discuss with them at all stages what their interests are and ensure that the programmes that we work out with them address the key issues of poverty alleviation, environmental conservation and the building of a more healthy and better society for those people. We hope that IDA, the concessional arm of the World bank, will achieve that to an even greater extent in the future than perhaps it has done in the past. We shall leave no stone unturned to ensure that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft International Development Association (Ninth Replenishment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That Mr. David Evans be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. Peter Viggers be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Mr. William Powell be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mrs. Marion Roe be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

NHS (Negligence Claims)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Peter Fry: Perhaps I should explain to my hon. Friend the Minister the reasons for raising this particular subject on the Adjournment. First, for some years now I have been concerned about the way in which health authorities have to fund the payments that they make after successful claims for compensation. Secondly, unfortunately, last year, one of my constituents, Donna Horne, suffered a grievous blow to her health after treatment at Leicester hospital. Her case is sub judice and I must be careful in what I say, but the tragic case of Donna Horne brought home to me the need for more to be done to assist those who are the unfortunate victims of negligence of national health service treatment.
It was only when I was discussing Donna's case with her legal adviser that I became even more aware of the deficiencies in the common law of tort. I discovered that, even though the majority of such cases—more than 90 per cent.—are settled out of court, a settlement can still take up to 10 years or more. The idea that there should be a regular payment or a periodic or structured payment can be agreed only if the judge finds out that the defendant and plaintiff have agreed to such a decision. Unfortunately, what happens now is that, often, there seems to be some unseemly wrangle about the amount of the lump sum to be paid based on the life expectancy of the unfortunate victim. Because of that, many years of negotiation take place even when the case is settled out of court.
Because of my concern about that, I put down a question on 3 December to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to ask him if he would consider producing guidelines which could be used by Her Majesty's judges to make orders for such structured payments. My right hon. and learned Friend replied that that was a matter for the judiciary. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend did not want to mislead me, but his reply was misleading. As the organisation Action for Victims of Medical Accidents has said, periodical payments such as a yearly payment, perhaps uprated by the retail prices index each year, can be awarded by a judge only if both sides to the dispute consent.
In the case of Burke v. Tower Hamlets health authority on 10 August 1989, Mr. Justice Drake held:
in determining quantum of damages for the costs of future care in a case of personal injury, the court has no power to order periodical payments instead of a lump sum except when both parties to the action consent to such an award.
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Action for Victims of Medical Accidents wrote to me saying:
It is only the Government that can change this by changing the law so that periodical payment orders can be made whether the Defendant consents or not.
In the circumstances, there seems to be a need for the law to be changed.
I understand that there are some in Government quarters who believe that there can be reform of civil procedures in order to accelerate the progress of such cases through the legal system. But those cases are often medically complex and sometimes the prognosis is uncertain. Therefore, delay could well occur even if other

steps were taken to speed up the process, particularly as it seems that the arguments about the size of the cash award could be protracted.
It is interesting that a full report drawn up by the Royal College of Physicians on the subject states on page 14:
The problems associated with one-off, lump-sum payments in negligence cases might be reduced by measures to encourage the use of provisional damages and structured payments. The former would allow cases to be concluded, either by means of a lump sum or a regular payment, on the basis of an assessment of the plaintiff's present condition while reserving his or her right to seek a revision if this condition changed adversely. The latter would provide for the payment of an agreed regular sum (without the prospect of subsequent revision) to the plaintiff for the duration of his or her natural life, thereby eliminating the problem of the 'pools win' type dissipation of a large single payment.
It goes on to say—this is of special interest to health authorities—
Periodic payments would seem a particularly appropriate form of settlement for public bodies like health authorities to adopt since they can be assumed to have an indefinite life and need not become involved in the problems of arranging capital provision annuities which have arisen with private insurers … It is possible that courts could by primary legislation be empowered to impose structured settlements, rather than depending purely on the plaintiff's consent as at present.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give my proposal serious and urgent attention. Victims of such terrible cases and their relatives would like to know that the Government are urgently addressing a problem that is increasing as more and more claims are made. I should like my hon. Friend to do what he can to convince the victims and their relatives that the Government are anxious to ensure that no unnecessary additional suffering is caused by prolonged litigation and that, by contrast, litigation should be kept to an absolute minimum.
I know that from 1 January 1990 the national health service has accepted that it will be responsible for claims against doctors and health authorities where it is said that negligence has occurred. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that such sums still have to come from health authorities' budgets. The first £200,000 of a claim must be met by the district health authority—a matter of considerable anxiety to many health authorities. First, the timing of an award being made against them is uncertain, as is the amount, because of the present legal process. Many district health authorities suddenly confronted by a bill for £200,000 for which they have not budgeted would be in great difficulty finding the money without taking drastic action—even perhaps closing wards. If, by any chance, they are faced with two such claims in one financial year, it is almost certain that health services in their areas would have to be cut.
The regions are not in a much better position. Few have adequate sinking or reserve funds to meet such claims. Even when they have such funds, as does my region—Oxford RHA—they will soon be depleted because of the claims on them.
I have discussed the matter with the chairmen of two RHAs and both agreed that some better method of funding is badly needed. One reason why is that there is a sharp growth in the frequency and severity of medical liability claims, and the problem for many health authorities is how to meet the cost of those claims. The Government have accepted that they have overall responsibility for negligence claims, but they must also


make clear provision for fulfilling that responsibility, and in such a way as not to impose a handicap on the day-to-day funding of the NHS.
I do not suggest for a moment that health authorities that are negligent should be allowed to be less vigilant. Any cases of negligence must be fully investigated and the necessary steps taken to prevent their recurrence. But, just as the Government have decided that doctors should not be expected to be financially responsible for claims against them, they should also ensure that health authority patients do not suffer because of these payments.
The timing of this debate is apposite in view of the introduction of a private Member's Bill by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who I am delighted to see in her place. She intends to introduce a Bill for no-fault compensation. The Government have considerable reservations about it, but I sympathise with the hon. Lady's Bill as well as understanding those reservations. If the Government do not like her Bill, they are obliged not only to show why they cannot accept it but to put forward a coherent and realistic policy to deal with cases of compensation such as the one that I have discussed tonight. When such a tragedy takes place, people want every sympathy and the knowledge that their difficult situation can be remedied as soon as possible. The health authority should feel that it can make reasonable and fair payments without having to consider their effect on the day-to-day running of their services.
The two measures that I have suggested can apply whether or not the hon. Lady's Bill comes into force. She will argue that patients will still have the right to go to law if they are not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them. If the Minister accepts that, I wonder whether he will accept my final point: that these two measures will apply whether the hon. Lady's Bill is accepted or not, but that if the Government do not accept it, these measures will become even more essential as a sign that the Government are concerned about this matter and are aware that it is a cause of growing anxiety throughout the country. They must have a realistic policy to deal with this difficulty.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on securing the first Adjournment debate of the new year and on raising an issue of such obvious current concern to the House, not least as a result of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). My hon. Friend deployed his argument in measured tones, and it was a seductive one due to the position in which the Government find themselves. I shall respond first to his closing comments.
It is clearly true that the two specific arguments that my hon. Friend advances are independent of any consideration of no-fault liability and must therefore be considered regardless of the Government's attitude to the proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
I entirely understand the position in which my hon. Friend found himself when he represented a constituency interest as a result of a case of medical negligence. There are difficult issues to be addressed when dealing with individual cases of such a nature, and I shall respond in some detail to both of my hon. Friend's specific proposals.

I shall deal first with the argument that the health authorities are primarily responsible for compensation for proved medical negligence.
When health authority resources are scarce—and was there ever a time when they were not—health authority managers argue that responsibility for funding such an award should fall elsewhere in the national health service. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that, however that is presented in bureaucratic terms, the reality is that any cash paid to meet a medical negligence claim or a no-fault claim by a patient must come from the limited resources available to the NHS. It is purely a bureaucratic decision whether such sums come from the budget of a specific health authority or from some back pocket in the Department. The only way to fund such a back pocket is to top slice the total NHS budget, thereby reducing the amount committed at the beginning of the year to health authorities.
My hon. Friend will accept that there is a degree of kidology about his proposal because whatever part of the NHS the claims were met from they would still be deducted from the NHS budget, and that would reduce the amount of resources available for patient treatment either in the health authority responsible for the payment or elsewhere.
Secondly, one of the reasons for keeping the principle of allowing a claim for negligence is to ensure that the clinician and the health authority as the clinician's employer are held to account if a case of negligence can be proved. I think that that is accepted by the hon. Member for Greenwich. That is a major reason for keeping the principle of negligence, even if we accept the principle of no-fault liability. We must retain the principle that damages should be payable if negligence can be proved, but that argument is powerful only if the responsibility for meeting a negligence claim rests reasonably directly either on the clinician or on the employing authority. If a concentration of negligence claims came to a health authority, it could cause financial difficulty. No one but a blind man could fail to recognise that.
Nevertheless, it is important that the primary responsibility for funding the payment of negligence claims should rest with the body which can properly be held accountable for the fact that negligence took place. After all, in the case of claims for proven negligence, we are talking about the individual's right to redress when he suffers as a result of somebody not properly discharging his professional responsibility. All those interested in the subject agree that, in those circumstances, proper redress should be available to the individual citizen, and the person responsible for the negligence should be held to account through the agency of the health authority. I understand the force of what my hon. Friend said, but I should not want to see liability for payment of negligence claims divorced from the circumstances which gave rise to the negligence.
My hon. Friend spoke at some length about what he, his constituent and her legal advisers understandably see as the inadequacies of the law of tort in dealing with claims of medical negligence. It is common ground that the law in this sector is inadequate in some respects. That is why Lord Hailsham, when he was Lord Chancellor, established a civil justice review to improve the machinery of civil justice in England and Wales by means of reforms in jurisdiction, procedure and court administration, and in particular to reduce delay, cost and complexity. That


review reported in June 1988 and many of its proposals found their way into legislation through the Courts and Legal Services Act 1989. The Government are committed to doing everything in their power to make the operation of the civil justice system, and in this context the law on medical negligence, effective.
I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Greenwich that because the law is inadequate in some respects that is sufficient reason to overturn the principle underlying the law. The principle is right, although I accept my hon. Friend's point that in practice the operation of the law is not as good as it should be and therefore should be improved. The Government are firmly committed to doing that.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Is the Minister convinced that the law of tort, with its confrontational approach, is appropriate in the situations which can arise in the NHS? For example, a patient may have a confident, long-standing relationship with his doctor but something goes seriously wrong, although that is nobody's fault. In an organisation as large as the NHS, there can be accidents. The only form of redress is through the confrontational legal process, which has major disadvantages for all concerned. Is there not a more civilised way to deal with the problem?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to deploy her argument in due time. I believe that it is common ground between us that, when a clinician is negligent, the right of a citizen to redress for that negligence should not be withdrawn. That should not be done differently from the way in which the law of tort is generally pursued in the courts. I do not think that the hon. Lady has any proposals which would change the way in which a claim for medical negligence, where that can be proved against a clinician and employing health authority, will be proceeded with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough talked about structured payments and phased payments in the event of a medical negligence claim. Those matters were the subject of a review by the Pearson commission in 1978. It was recommended by a majority that provision should be made for damages in the form of periodic payments for future pecuniary loss caused by death or serious and lasting injury.
The Government consulted on the recommendation and found that the idea met with almost universal hostility. That was mainly on the ground that plaintiffs and defendants like a lump sum. Against the background of the consultation—there was virtually no support for the principle of setting up new machinery for dealing with phased payments—the Government decided not to proceed with the Pearson commission's recommendation. As my hon. Friend knows, however, the law allows for the possibility of phased payments. In 1987, that possibility was made somewhat easier to implement when the Inland Revenue reached agreement with the Association of British Insurers that income payments in damages awards

would be tax free. Despite the fact that the tax position has improved when a phased payment is made as a result of a medical negligence claim, few such payments are made.
I heard what my hon. Friend said about phased payments and I shall take the matter away and reconsider it, but it is something that has been considered by the Government in the past. The Pearson commission recommended the same line as that which my hon. Friend has suggested, but when the Government consulted they did not find much support for it. That is not to say that we should dismiss the proposal, however, and I have said that I will reconsider it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he approached the debate. My approach is to recognise the shortcomings of the existing system and then to urge that we try to make it work better. I take that view because we must accept that medical care is never risk free. It is an artificial process involving artificial interference with a patient. There will always be a residual risk, even when the doctor is entirely diligent, that medical care will not be successful and may even lead to damage to the patient.
The question that the House will ultimately have to address when the hon. Member for Greenwich introduces her Bill is who should take on the risk of cases in which the doctor is diligent. There is no dispute that when the doctor is negligent it is for the health authority and the health service to make recompense for the negligence. Should the state take on the risk if the doctor is diligent, even though any patient who goes for medical treatment must accept that there is always a risk attached to that treatment? If the doctor is diligent, it seems to me reasonable to ask the individual to take the risk on himself, especially when we bear in mind that if the state were to take upon itself the underwriting of the risk the effect would be not to eliminate all difficulty or unhappiness arising from disability but merely to move the boundary. We provide for damages in cases in which the NHS is negligent, but not where it is diligent. The effect of the proposal of the hon. Member for Greenwich would be to move—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have been patient. The Minister is going beyond the subject of the debate and anticipating an issue which will be coming before the House.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough for recognising that the arguments do not in themselves undermine the basis on which the law currently operates.
Our objective should be to ensure that the present law, which holds clinicians to account when they are negligent but does not seek to impose on the health service an obligation to underwrite risk when they are diligent, operates more fairly and effectively in future. That principle is one that the Government wholeheartedly embrace, and I shall seek to demonstrate to my hon. Friend and to the rest of the House that we are able to take practical steps to make that principle real in the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.